Article

The 2022 Nobel Prize in physics for entanglement and quan-

tum information: the new revolution in quantum mechanics

and science

Vasil Penchev

Bulgarian Academy of Sciences: Institute of Philosophy and Sociology

Dept. of Philosophy of Science; vasildinev@gmail.com

Abstract: The paper discusses the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics for experiments of entanglement “es-

tablishing the violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science” in a much

wider, including philosophical context legitimizing by the authority of the Nobel Prize a new scien-

tific area out of “classical” quantum mechanics relevant to Pauli’s “particle” paradigm of energy

conservation and thus to the Standard model obeying it. One justifies the eventual future theory of

quantum gravitation as belonging to the newly established quantum information science. Entangle-

ment, involving non-Hermitian operators for its rigorous description, non-unitarity as well as non-

local and superluminal physical signals “spookily” (by Einstein’s flowery epithet) synchronizing

and transferring some nonzero action at a distance, can be considered to be quantum gravity so that

its local counterpart to be Einstein’s gravitation according to general relativity therefore pioneering

an alternative pathway to quantum gravitation different from the “secondary quantization” of the

Standard model. So, the experiments of entanglement once they have been awarded by the Nobel

Prize launch particularly the relevant theory of quantum gravitation grounded on “quantum infor-

mation science” thus granted to be nonclassical quantum mechanics in the shared framework of the

generalized quantum mechanics obeying rather quantum-information conservation than only en-

ergy conservation. The concept of “dark phase” of the universe naturally linked to the very well

confirmed “dark matter” and “dark energy” and opposed to its “light phase” inherent to classical

quantum mechanics and the Standard model obeys quantum-information conservation, after which

reversible causality or the mutual transformation of energy and information are valid. The mythical

Big Bang after which energy conservation holds universally is to be replaced by an omnipresent and

omnitemporal medium of decoherence of the dark and nonlocal phase into the light and local phase.

The former is only an integral image of the latter and borrowed in fact rather from religion than

from science. Physical, methodological and proper philosophical conclusions follow from that par-

adigm shift heralded by the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics. For example, the scientific theory of think-

ing should originate from the dark phase of the universe, as well: probably only approximately

modeled by neural networks physically belonging to the light phase thoroughly. A few crucial phil-

osophical sequences follow from the break of Pauli’s paradigm: (1) the establishment of the “dark”

phase of the universe as opposed to its “light” phase, only to which the Cartesian dichotomy of

“body” and “mind” is valid; (2) quantum information conservation as relevant to the dark phase,

furthermore generalizing energy conservation as to its light phase, productively allowing for phys-

ical entities to appear “ex nihilo”, i.e., from the dark phase, in which energy and time are yet insep-

arable from each other; (3) reversible causality as inherent to the dark phase; (4) the interpretation

of gravitation only mathematically: as an interpretation of the incompleteness of finiteness to infin-

ity, for example, following the Gödel dichotomy (“either contradiction or incompleteness”) about

the relation of arithmetic to set theory; (5) the restriction of the concept of hierarchy only to the light

phase; (6) the commensurability of both physical extremes of a quantum and the universe as a whole

in the dark phase obeying quantum information conservation and akin to Nicholas of Cusa’s phil-

osophical and theological worldview.

Keywords: classical quantum mechanics, dark and light phases of the universe, dark energy and

dark matter, Einstein, energy conservation, entanglement, general relativity, Hermitian and non-

Disclaimer/Publisher’s Note: The statements, opinions, and data contained in all publications are solely those of the individual author(s) and

contributor(s) and not of MDPI and/or the editor(s). MDPI and/or the editor(s) disclaim responsibility for any injury to people or property resulting

from any ideas, methods, instructions, or products referred to in the content.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

Hermitian quantities in quantum mechanics, locality and nonlocality, Pauli’s particle paradigm,

quantum gravity, quantum information, quantum information conservation, qubit, the Standard

model, unitarity and non-unitarity.

1. INTRODUCTION: THE HISTORY OF NOBEL PRIZES IN PHYSICS, ESPECIALLY

IN THE AREA OF QUANTUM MECHANICS: THE NEGLECTED ENTANGLEMENT

“The Nobel Prize in Physics 2022 was awarded jointly to Alain Aspect, John F.

Clauser and Anton Zeilinger ‘for experiments with entangled photons, establishing the

violation of Bell inequalities and pioneering quantum information science’”

. So, it has

been postponed for 40-50 years to the experiments at issue and the corresponding publi-

cations (Clauser, Horne, Shimony, Holt 1969; Freedman, Clauser 1972; Clauser, Horne

1974; Aspect, Grangier, Roger 1981; 1982)

. Meaning that Nobel Prizes can award only

alive people, it was delayed maximally and as if presenting it “reluctantly”:

One may use the following humorous metaphor: if Nicolaus Copernicus had

awarded for its discovery in his age, it would be presented analogically “reluctantly” not

mentioning the punishing “awards” of Galileo Galilei or Giordano Bruno (who was ex-

pelled from the scientific Oxford: attempting to be recognized before that). As the helio-

centric system, the phenomena of entanglement demonstrated by the experiments at issue

did not correspond to the general worldview and to even to the social order and hierarchy

in the final analysis

One might trace the French revolution about two centuries later back to Copernicus’s

discovery which blew up the established order. The revolutions in our age are “velvet”

or “gentle” rather than blood as the French revolution was really. Furthermore, the revo-

lution corresponding to the discovery of entanglement and quantum information is yet

forthcoming in an uncertain future. However, it is unavoidable and the present paper will

try to explain why entanglement and quantum information bode social revolutions along

with properly “scientific revolutions”: an expression more or less metaphorical in com-

parison with the real shocks of social revolutions even being “gentle” or “velvet”.

Quantum mechanics called for a scientific revolution about a century ago. Anyway,

that revolution was “mitigated” in order to remain mainly not more than scientific. That

is the revolution induced by quantum mechanics was reinterpreted in a way to be re-

stricted to a quite specific subject studied by that science and referring to scales commen-

surable with the Planck constant, that is microscopic and not being able to influence our

everyday experience directly.

One can utilize a counterfactual comparison to Copernicus’s discovery, after which

the astronomic sun of the heliocentric system would be absolutely distinguished from the

sun visible on the sky so that the former is immovable, but the former is moving and

Copernicus’s discovery revealed only it not touching in any way the latter or the estab-

lished social order. Fortunately or unfortunately, the Holy Church was not so smart and

did not manage to distinguish the astronomical sun from the sun of human experience,

the latter being only relevant to the established social order.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/2022/summary/. This is the official formulation for the 2022 Nobel Prize

in physics.

The publications of the third Nobel Prize winner, Anton Zeilinger were later: about 1997-1998.

Entanglement and quantum information imply a very essential change of our general and philosophical worldview

(e.g.: Bilban 2021; Hagar 2017; Kupczynski 2016; Rapoport 2011; Bokulich, Jaeger, eds. 2010; Penchev 2009; Dunlap

2015; Esfeld 2004; Horodecki, Horodecki, Horodecki 2004). There are papers (Crosilla 2022; Şahin 2020; Boge 2019;

Ruiz-Perez, Garcia-Escartin 2017; Parsons 2013; Zizzi 2007) discussing entanglement or quantum information in the

context of logic, arithmetic, set theory, or the foundations of mathematics and thus in a less or more generalized and

philosophical sense.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

About four centuries later, the “error”, though admitted to the heliocentric system,

to Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo Galilei or Giordano Bruno, was not repeated in relation

to quantum mechanics. Speaking figuratively, the “sun” of the Planck constant scale was

reliably distinguished from the “macroscopic sun” visible by everyone. So, the new “he-

liocentric system” of quantum mechanics was successfully limited only to its specific sub-

ject not concerning common sense’s worldview or people’s life otherwise than by the me-

diation of technical devices, in which the “human interface” is fundamentally different

from the scientific principles on which they rely

Physics nowadays generalizes two fundamental quantities, energy and time shared

by anything claimed to be physical, as well as a collection of laws of conservation, among

which both energy conservation and correlative temporal Lie groups of translations are

featured. One can suggest that Wolfgang Pauli and his contributions to quantum mechan-

ics, his “victory” over Niels Bohr

in the debate about the violation of energy conserva-

tion

and the relevance of the “fourth uncertainty” in quantum mechanics were that

“point of bifurcation”, after which quantum mechanics was prevented revolutionizing all

physics, the general philosophical worldview and social order in the final analysis by self-

restricting to a specific own subject however obeying energy conservation and rejecting

the inherent “time operator” so that time is a unique quantity in quantum mechanics

, to

which no Hermitian operator corresponds unlike all the rest quantities in quantum me-

chanics.

Speaking metaphorically, Wolfgang Pauly imposed a “limited autonomy” of quan-

tum mechanics, according to which it obeys a few fundamental laws valid in all physics

and corresponding to the hierarchical structure of society and a social order though vari-

able and changeable from a historically certain order to another: however, without any

doubt in the necessity of some social order, without any “anarchism”. In other and meta-

phorical words, though the area of quantum mechanics is a “hippy commune” similar to

“Freetown Christiania” in Copenhagen, permitted as a “social experiment”, nonetheless

its autonomy is restricted and the “Danish jurisdiction” is anyway valid in its territory.

So, Wolfgang Pauli managed to impose a constitution of quantum mechanics arrang-

ing its limited freedom in a way much wiser than the brutality of the Holy Church in the

Middle Ages to the heliocentric system. Utilizing again the metaphor above, he distin-

guished quite reliably the “immovable astronomical sun” from the “visible sun of human

experience” therefore preventing both social revolutions like the blood French one and

cruelties like Giordano Bruno’s pyre. So, his “Solomonic” decision seemed to be diplo-

matic, sage and prescient.

Following the same thalweg, he forecast the new elementary particle, “neutrino” (i.e.

“little neutron” in Italian) by virtue of energy conservation

. However, that scientific

By another metaphor, one can use a smartphone posting “sweet kittens” on the Internet and social networks by his or

her widget without any care or trouble about the social order and her or his place within it.

Bohr, Kramers, Slater (1924)

The corresponding history and references are available in: Guerra, Leone, Robotti (2014).

Investigations (e.g. Allori 2019; Khrennikov 2009; Basini, Capozziello 2005) the special position of time in the on-

tology of quantum mechanics in turn being a subject of other papers (e.g. Berghofer, Goyal, Wiltsche 2021; Harding

2021; Colletti, Pellegrini 2020; Wallace 2020; Bigaj 2018; Lazarovici, Oldofredi, Esfeld 2018; Catren 2017; Esfeld

2017; 2014; Gao 2017; Khrennikov 2017; Auffèves, Grangier 2016; Brock, Harré 2016; Glickm 2016; Dorato 2015;

Egg, Esfeld 2015; Lam 2015; da Costa, Lombardi 2014; Esfeld, Gisin 2014; Grössing, Fussy, Pascasio, Schwabl 2014;

Roldán-Charria 2014; Bain 2013; Costa, Lombardi, Lastiri 2013; Griffiths 2013; Heelan 2013; Esfeld 2012; Bricmont

2011; Calosi, Fano; Tarozzi 2011; MacKinnon 2007; Wilson 2011; Lewis 2006; Belousek 2003; French, Ladyman

2003; Busch 2002; French 2002; Peacock 2002; Krause 2000; Bartels 1999; Garola 1999; Dürr, Goldstein, Zanghì 1995;

Squires 1990; Vigier 1988; Elsasser 1973).

In detail and references by Guerra, Leone, Robotti (2014).

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

prediction furthermore created the “particle paradigm” of quantum physics, according to

which energy (respectively, mass at rest) is to identify what an element, “atom” in quan-

tum physics is: an “elementary particle”. Though hundreds or even thousands of those

“elementary particles” have been being revealed, the Standard model reduces them to

only seventeen most fundamental ones, at that obeying a clear regularity according to

three basic physical interactions (excluding gravity). So, the particle paradigm originating

from Pauli’s “constitution of restricted autonomy” for quantum mechanics received a

glowing confirmation therefore preventing any further debate about a greater autonomy

of quantum mechanics not speaking at all for its “local laws” to become global and gen-

eral.

Consequently, the present paper will attempt to explain why the phenomena of en-

tanglement and quantum mechanics, proclaimed to be scientific facts by the Nobel Prize

in 2022, contradict Pauli’s “Solomonic” constitution of quantum mechanics and the parti-

cle paradigm shared by the Standard model also enjoying many Nobel Prizes (that is: ra-

ther more than only one). The essence of the contradiction at issue consists in the sugges-

tion that quantum mechanics for entanglement and quantum information is able to violate

energy conservation (implicitly introducing a Hermitian or non-Hermitian operator of

time, by the by, prohibited after Pauli).

One can liken the particle paradigm (or respectively, the Standard model) to the Ptol-

emaic “epicycles” added ad hoc with the sole purpose to conserve geocentrism reconciling

it to the observable motions of the planets in the solar system. If one adds new and new

epicycles ad hoc, the predictions based on the geocentric system can be not less precise and

even more exact than those relying on the heliocentric one since relevant epicycles can

reflect effects due to the motion of the whole solar system through the Milky way. Then,

our planet can continue to be reckoned as the center of the universe without implying any

ideas about changes in the social order and revolutions such as the French one, for exam-

ple.

Analogically new and new elementary particles similar to “epicycles” might be

added conserving the fundamental particle paradigm, the quantities of energy and time

as the ultimate cornerstone for the unity of all physics including quantum mechanics in

particular. Even more, just as all epicycles can be systemized into a few groups so that one

is able to consider any epicycles as composed and derivative from those groups, the ana-

logical Standard model consisting from the seventeen most elementary particles can be

built preventing any ideas about the relativity of any order in physic, science or society.

Then, the quantities of energy and time guarantee a strict order equivalent to the

concept of well-ordering in mathematics (linked also to the axiom of choice in set theory

by the well-ordering theorem). The energies of any system can be compared unambigu-

ously with the energy of any other system so that the energy of just one of them is greater

than that of the other one therefore constituting a rigorous hierarchy, in which the physi-

cal influence of the system possessing the greater energy is stronger than that with any

smaller energy. For example, the physical action of any macroscopic body (e.g. any meas-

uring apparatus) is much, much stronger than that of any quantum entity, e.g. such as an

electron or a photon, but much, much tinier than that of any astronomical object such as

the sun, the moon or a planet.

So, the quantity of energy generates a physical hierarchy therefore suggesting the

naturality of the idea of hierarchy at all, for example that of social hierarchy. Parallelly,

the correlative quantity of time generates an analogical strict hierarchy of causality so that

the cause influences the effect, but the effect cannot influence the cause in any way. So,

another temporal order of causality appears in physics, science, and common sense there-

fore conditioning social conservatism and the immutability of the established social order

and hierarchies.

This means that the constitution invented by Wolfgang Pauli for quantum mechanics

and resulted into the “particle paradigm” and the Standard model in the final analysis is

consonant and consistent with the concepts of “order”, “hierarchy” including social ones.

On the contrary and even absolutely oppositely, the phenomena of entanglement and

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

quantum information imply a quantity more general than that of energy (respectively,

that of time), at that without any physical dimension: the physically dimensionless quan-

tity of information or quantum information.

In fact, the “classical” quantum mechanics was forced to introduce probability den-

sity distribution (and respectively, its characteristic function, what any wave function is)

thus substituting by it the exact single value of any variable, meant in physics before it; as

well as defining what physical quantity is to be by that change of probability density dis-

tribution to which the corresponding Hermitian operator corresponds unambiguously.

Consequently, though implicitly, physical quantity is defined as (quantum) infor-

mation since information can be defined as a relation of probability density distributions

(e.g. following Kolmogorov). In fact, entanglement considers a wider class of operators,

e.g. non-Hermitian operators

as Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance”

can be formal-

ized, and thus admits the concept of physical quantity to be relevantly generalized so that

it includes entanglement or the “physics of ghosts” sarcastically suggested by Einstein. As

to the corresponding physical hierarchy and order of energy and time, entanglement once

it has been interpreted to be physical action (as the Nobel Prize in 2022 proclaims indi-

rectly) messes them in an arbitrary way and makes them meaningless.

However, the “Solomonic” decision of Pauli prohibited in particular that “mess” at

issue, and here is why. Energy conservation in quantum mechanics is equivalent to the

specific property of unitarity, which in turn is satisfied only for all Hermitian operators

therefore excluding all non-Hermitian ones and thus the phenomena of entanglement.

The Hermitian operators can be immediately visualized in relation to the pair the initial

probability density distributions corresponding to any Hermitian operator as follows:

Any Hermitian operator changes the probabilities of all values of the quantum vari-

able at issue (eventually and particularly not changing some of them), not exchanging the

values of the quantum variable. Respectively, this means that the correlative temporal

group admissible after energy conservation is able only to be translated thus not violating

the sequence of temporal moments or causality. The “spooky actions” at any distances

forecast by Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (1935) as a refutation of the “completeness of

quantum mechanics” need the violation of locality (which is postulated in special or gen-

eral relativity) and thus admit the violations of both temporal sequences and causality:

any quantum entity though being arbitrarily remote can influence a certain quantum en-

tity once both are entangled to each other. The fundamental locality of physics particularly

established by the postulate of not exceeding the light speed in a vacuum in both special

and general relativity is broken.

Nonetheless, the experiments awarded by Nobel prize in 2022 state those “spooky

actions at a distance” as scientific facts though in a quite specific form: as correlations

violating Bell’s inequalities (1964) and thus meaning instant interactions of probability

density distributions referring to namesake quantities of quantum entities remote from

each other at an arbitrary distance. So, a necessary condition for the spooky action at a

distance is all physical quantities to be defined by non-degenerated probability density

distributions, which is relevant only to quantum mechanics rather than to classical me-

chanics and thus explains in particular why phenomena of entanglement are not observed

in the latter.

However, there is still one reason for Pauli’s “Solomonic decision” to be so successful:

any quantum entity can be described exhaustively in its framework. Thus, one can think

of all phenomena of entanglement as redundant to quantum mechanics, which Occam’s

razor is to cut unavoidably. Indeed, any quantum entity considered to be a single system

and accordingly described by a single separable complex Hilbert space obeys Pauli’s

The paper of Simonov, Capolupo, Giampaolo (2019) investigates the violation of CPT-symmetry in the same con-

text.

For example, the note of Selleri and Tarozzi (1986) synthesizes why quantum mechanics is incompatible with Ein-

stein locality.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

constitution absolutely. Only if one means two or more quantum systems (or a system

and one or more subsystems), the phenomena of entanglement or quantum information

can be registered. So (and particularly), the Standard model is relevant, true and complete

if one researches all quantum phenomena to a single whole (i.e., to a single system).

The same opposition of a single physical system versus two or more can be traced

back in classical mechanics and especially to the opposition of so-called inertial mass to

gravitational mass. Indeed the former refers to a single system, and the latter to two or

more ones, but both mean physical descriptions obeying time and corresponding smooth

manifolds with their systems of differential equations inherent for classical mechanics.

General relativity postulates the fundamental equity of the two “kinds” of mass and

accordingly the equivalence of the corresponding two ways of descriptions: for example,

according to Einstein’s famous “Gedankenexperiment” about an accelerating elevator

after which the descriptions by inertial masses or alternatively, by gravitational masses

are indistinguishable experimentally from each other. Thus, the Einstein field equation

being the main conclusion of general relativity describes equally well any gravitational

field as the variably accelerated motion of a body in an arbitrary force field (e.g., a certain

electromagnetic field).

Consequently, the opposition of gravitational field to any other force field (whether

only possible or really existent) is locally irrelevant since they are locally indistinguishable

from each other by any local experiment (i.e., “within the elevator” of Einstein’s “Gedank-

enexperiment”). Thus, the gravitational field can be interpreted to be the generalized de-

scription of the entire class of any force fields, which are reduced to be only three after the

Standard model: strong, electromagnetic, and weak.

In other words, if the conception of “quantum gravity” is meant that there exists a

relevant quantum variant of gravitation so that it can be included among the rest three,

properly quantum infractions of the Standard model, it is fundamentally wrong since

gravity refers only to the global description just only by virtue of its globality and regard-

less of the nature of the force field at issue, therefore being relevant to all the class of phys-

ical interactions (“force fields”).

Nonetheless, a generalized “thought experiment” in a manner of Einstein referring

to “quantum-gravitational field” rather than to the classical gravitational field as the orig-

inal “Gedankenexperiment” remains initially alien to all researches and huge literature in

the area of quantum gravity. One can utilize the historical metaphor or precedent about

the numerous inventions of “Perpetuum mobile” until the decision of the French academy

established that it is impossible since it contradicts the principles of thermodynamics

Analogically, new and new “theories” of quantum gravity have been permanently

being invented regardless of the sketched thought experiment about an “elevator in quan-

tum-gravitational field” demonstrates that gravity cannot be another physical quantum

interaction along with those of the Standard model: weak, electromagnetic, and strong

since it is another expression of them.

Even more, the nature of gravitation can be traced back even to the fundamental log-

ical distinction of “property” versus “relation”. Gravitation is to be related only to the

later and thus it can be relevant only to the parts of a whole (and to their relations) rather

than to a single whole (and to its properties), however to which the description by the

Standard model continues to be still relevant.

The way in which the Standard model restricts itself only to quantum “properties”

consists in the consideration of a single and universal separable complex Hilbert space

relevant to any quantum system as a single whole. Indeed, one can consider any quantum

system as a whole without any subsystems (i.e. “parts”), and accordingly, the Standard

model is absolutely exact: thus its predictions, as well.

Einstein (1920) himself described his idea in an unpublished document now available as a digital edition at:

https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/ .

For example in the book of Ord-Hume (2005).

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

Nonetheless, a huge realm of phenomena relying on the “parts” and internal struc-

ture of all quantum systems remains “dark” just as “dark matter” and “dark energy”,

which are estimated by experiments and observations to be approximately 95% or 96% of

all mass and energy of the universe

. Common sense tends to interpret that fact wrongly

just according to its prejudice searching for quantum gravity as a property: and now, for a

special kind of “dark stuff” resulting in the observed phenomena of dark matter & energy.

So, one investigates whether some unknown additional particles might not complement

the Standard model in a way to explain both dark matter and dark energy as originating

from them or from their interactions to each other, or from the known “light” and estab-

lished matter and particles of the Standard model.

One can feature a special property of the human mind that penetrates science in an

unhindered way: it continues to research “tree by tree” without stopping to see the “for-

est”. So and particularly, quantum science tends to search for new “dark” particles after

the usual “light” ones of the Standard model. In other and more metaphorical words, the

quantum physicists are not philosophers: they do not stop to see the “wood” of the Stand-

ard model realizing the fact that it inherently fits to study the fundamental physical inter-

actions only as properties:

On the contrary, both dark matter and dark energy are confirmed and even can be

established in principle only in astronomical observations and relatable to gravitational

interactions, that is, to properties of the parts of a whole after the considerations above

likened many “theories” of quantum gravity to the offerts for “Perpetuum mobile” in the

past therefore neglecting the fundamental scientific, even logical distinction of “proper-

ties” versus “relations” and meaning the Standard model in the framework of the former,

and gravity, respectively, dark matter and dark energy, to the latter.

Then, one can think of the following problem. Which is the counterpart of the gravi-

tational, inherently relational (whether in special relativity or in general relativity) interac-

tion, but to the Standard model considering the physical interaction rather as properties

than as relations as, on the contrary, the gravitational theory of relativity does? Can that

counterpart at issue be interpreted as the cherished “quantum gravity” though in a gen-

eralized meaning (e.g., not allowing for any second quantization as all the rest three inter-

actions of the Standard model can be introduced)?

The subject and context of the present paper already suggest the answer: the phe-

nomena of entanglement and quantum information can be considered to be that quantum

counterpart of classical gravitation and thus, quantum gravitation in a generalized mean-

ing corresponding to the thought experiment of an elevator in a quantum-gravitational

field sketched above. Indeed, entanglement needs at least two quantum subsystems of a

quantum system to be defined as a relation just as general relativity determines gravity to

be a relation though that of classical physical systems rather than of quantum ones.

Indeed, entanglement is defined as to the case of a quantum system and two or more

quantum subsystems of the former, obeying the following condition: the quantum system

cannot be factorized to any tensor product of its subsystems. In other words, this requires

for the subsystems to be “orthogonal” to each other in an exact meaning: the separable

complex Hilbert space of each subsystem is orthogonal to any other of those. Speaking

loosely, the entangled quantum system is an inseparable whole which cannot be reduced

equivalently to the set of its parts since the interaction of the parts is nonzero in general,

and entanglement is defined (also it can be quantitatively) as that interaction at issue.

One can check that entanglement cannot be introduced in any description obeying

classical mechanics in virtue of the following reason. Any quantity in quantum mechanics

is defined as a Hermitian operator in the separable complex Hilbert space corresponding

to the unitary change of probability density distributions of all possible measurements of

that quantity. If one considers two or more namesake quantities, each of which refers to

entangled quantum entities, their corresponding probability distributions can overlap:

There are many publications, e.g.: Ade et al 2016, or the papers meant by the Nobel Prize for physics in 2011.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

However, this is absolutely excluded in any description in classical mechanics, to

which the rule “tertium non datur” is valid: any quantities in two or more classical phys-

ical subsystems are either the same or they are absolutely different; the “third” of any

degree of overlapping each other is not available even in the definition of “quantity” in

classical mechanics and unlike the case of quantum mechanics.

So one can conclude that what entanglement means is the case of those quantities

relevant only to quantum mechanics which refer to relations of two or many subsystems

rather than the properties of single one. Thus, the fundamental contribution of the exper-

iments awarded by the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics consists in the establishment of quan-

tum interactions which are inherently and definitively relational: oppositely to the “phi-

losophy” or “logic” of the Standard model or Pauli’s constitution of quantum mechanics

interpreting all quantities in quantum mechanics to be properties, energy conservation to

be inviolable, and no operator corresponds to the quantity of time. Thus, the relational

essence of entanglement seems to be analogical to that of Einstein’s gravitation even in

the name of his theory: general relativity.

Even more, one can admit the analogical shared “relativity” of entanglement and

Einstein’s gravitation relies on the same essence only expressed in two different ways cor-

responding to the discrete quantum formalism of quantum mechanics, on the one hand,

and to the smooth formalism of classical mechanics, on the other hand. So and as a hy-

pothesis, one expresses the same phenomena: (1) in the separable complex Hilbert space

created to unify the proper discrete description relevant to the investigated quantum sys-

tem “by itself” with the smooth description the readings of the macroscopic apparatus

inherently obeying the laws of classical mechanics; and (2) the four-dimensional pseudo-

Riemannian space of general relativity, in the framework of which the investigated grav-

itational system and the apparatuses measuring it, both are described by smooth differ-

ential equations

Indeed, the Schrödinger equation is also a smooth differential equation appropriate

to describe quantum reality, however at the cost of introducing a so non-classical element

as “wave function” being the characteristic function of a probability density distribution

substituted the exact single value of a certain quantity in a certain moment of time (which

is the only possible case in classical physics). In fact, though the Schrödinger equation is

commonly and universally accepted nowadays for the exhaustive description of any

Though the emergent interpretation of quantum mechanics (e.g., Adler 2012 or Allori, Goldstein, Tumulka, Zanghi

2014) is essentially different from that by quantum information (or entropy and information as in: Resconi, Licata,

Fiscaletti 2013) and its unification of discreteness and continuity as here, they are consistent with each other. The uni-

fication of quantum mechanics and relativity (e.g., Kryukov 2011; 2006; Korotkikh 2009; Garuccio 2000; Aerts 1996)

can be considered to originate from the former (featuring only quantum mechanics) if continuity is identified to be local

versus discreteness (or any quantum leap) as nonlocal (also in a rigorous mathematical meaning). Further, but without

being necessary, the same unification can be continued to quantum gravity even in an abstract mathematical sense (e,g.

Sorkin, Yazdi 2018; Kleinschmidt, Hermann 2010; Baianu, Brown, Glazebrook 2007; El Naschie 2008; 2004; 2004a):

an approach comparable with that of the present paper.

In fact, many papers (e.g. Cafaro, Alsing 2020; Caticha 2018; Kim 2018; Cafaro 2017; Hyatt, Garrison, Bauer 2017;

Banchi, Giorda, Zanardi 2014; Bodendorfer 2014; Reginatto 2014; Cafaro, Mancini 2012; Mullick Bandyopadhyaya

2012; Kumar, Mahapatra, Phukon, Sarkar 2012; Major 2012; Kryukov 2011; 2006; Goyal 2010; Kim, Kim, Bae 2010;

Avron, Kenneth 2009; Bertram 2008; Cafaro, Ali 2008; Iwai 2007; Mosseri, Ribeiro 2007; Zanardi, Giorda, Cozzini

2007; Mallios 2006; Grabowski, Kuś, Marmo 2005; Lévay 2005; 2004; Streater 2004; 2004a; 1996; Ay, Tuschmann

2003; Coecke 2003; Zhotikov 2003; Chen, Ungar 2002; Jenov 2002; Ghikas 2001; Zizzi 2000; Ashtekar. Schilling

1999; Fine, Fine 1997; Coquereaux 1989; Souriau 1983; Ingarden 1981), the subject of which is quantum mechanics

geometry, quantum information geometry or entanglement geometry, pioneer, though more or less implicitly, a pathway

to quantum gravity and general relativity, analogical to the approach advocated in the present paper.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

quantum systems, being technically more convenient, Schrödinger (1926) himself has

demonstrated the equivalence of his “undulatory mechanics” with Heisenberg’s “matrix

mechanics” and thus, that of the descriptions by smooth wave functions or by Heisenberg

matrices. The latter can be interpreted as the description from the discrete viewpoint of

the investigated quantum entity unlike that (though absolutely equivalent) from the view-

point of the macroscopic apparatus sharing the smoothness featuring classical mechanics.

Consequently, one can conjecture that entanglement and gravitation are the same,

but described in two different formal languages even literally complementary to each

other: i.e. complementary in the narrow sense and exact meaning of quantum mechanics

since the description as entanglement considers their shared essence to be discrete “by

itself” versus that of general relativity, according to which it is continuous and smooth,

though the apparatus in both cases is macroscopic and thus obeying the smooth (conse-

quently continuous) classical mechanics being furthermore deterministic rather than in-

herently probabilistic as the quantum description by the Schrödinger equation.

That essential complementarity, fortunately, admits to be reduced to the formal and

mathematical opposition of the separable complex Hilbert space of quantum mechanics

and the pseudo-Riemannian space of general relativity

: and then their eventual unifica-

tion as far as the conjecture is that they share some though unknown common structure.

At first glance, the two spaces, though both being vector ones, are so different as possible:

the former is infinite-dimensional, complex, convex, and “straight” (i.e., “not-curved”),

but the latter is four-dimensional, real, “concave” (i.e., “not convex”), and “curved”.

Nonetheless, quantum information as “pioneered” by those Nobel Prize awarded experi-

ments is able to suggest the same viewpoint to both spaces, namely that of a usual ball in

Euclidean space now interpreted as a quantum bit, “qubit”, the unit of quantum infor-

mation analogically to the way for a bit to be a unit of “classical” information.

Then, pseudo-Riemannian space is that qubit, permanently extending and arbitrarily

deformed in the course of extension, in which its current value outlines a world line under

the condition for the value of the qubit to be smoothly variable in the extension at issue.

The qubit Hilbert space (as the separable complex Hilbert space can be equivalently refor-

mulated under a few conditions rather technical) is an infinite series of the same qubits

somehow flattened not to be curved and situated “one after one” rather than “one within

one” as in the the former case.

The case of the single extending deformed qubit as the quantum-information model

of the world line of pseudo-Riemannian space can be always decomposed into two world

lines into two Minkowski spaces

, “orthogonal” to each other, so they can be convention-

ally named to be “covariant” and “contravariant”, accordingly. Then, each of the covari-

ant and contravariant Minkowski spaces containing a world line can be equivalently rep-

resented as two qubit spaces though by the mediation of the axiom of choice. The latter

two qubit spaces can be interpreted, for example, as dual to each other, on the one hand,

or as corresponding to two quantum subsystems.

Anyway, one can conclude that the experiments of entanglement and the theory of

quantum information pioneered by it can be the key for the unification of quantum me-

chanics and general relativity. The consideration sketched above, rather logical, ontologi-

cal and philosophical, may be an approach to their unification.

2. WHY ENTANGLEMENT WAS NEGLECTED

The introduction suggests a few reasons for entanglement or the studying it theory

of quantum information to be partly neglected in the foundations of quantum mechanics

being rather developed as an applied physical discipline though in the general quantum

framework. The “classical” quantum mechanics, Pauli’s “paradigm”, and the Standard

Their correspondence or mapping is investigated in detail in another paper (Penchev 2022 February 4).

A conceptual “synonym” is quantum gravity without Lorentz invariance violation as in: Bonder 2018; Bonder, Su-

darsky 2009; 2008; Corichi, Sudarsky 2005; Dowker, Henson, Sorkin 2004.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

model can exhaustively describe any single quantum system without any necessity to in-

volve quantum information or entanglement. On the contrary, the relation of two quan-

tum systems eventually entangled seems to be relevant to applications according to the

practical use for them to be separately studied.

Thus, three sub-areas in the theory of quantum information

are developed: quan-

tum cryptography, quantum computer, and quantum communication. All the three are

directed to technical implementations, quantum counterparts to the corresponding classi-

cal applied disciplines. They can be justified only by the success of the invented devices

therefore not needing entanglement to be established as a fundamental scientific fact fur-

thermore confirmed by the corresponding Nobel Prize.

However, its recognition is essential for fundamental theoretical research, including

the foundations of quantum mechanics, since the results are abstract theories, which can-

not be corroborated like technical devices, in which quantum cryptography, quantum

computer or quantum communication might be implemented regardless of the status of

entanglement.

Entanglement and quantum information refers to a general problem being central for

science in the beginning of the 20th century: for philosophy, logic, mathematics and even

physics after special and general relativity. This is the question whether relations can be

considered as a special subject of research, being more or less irreducible to properties.

Russell, for example, insisted that the relations should be considered as independent of

properties in general in logic, mathematics, and philosophy

Einstein’s special and general relativity extended the same approach to physics: more

precisely to mechanics and its basic concept of motion (being unified with the concept of

electromagnetic field originating from Maxwell’s theory) and to the theory of gravitation

and the concept of physical interactions what gravitation is. Mechanical motion is only a

relation of two or more reference frames rather than a property of any reference frame

including that hypothetical one linked to the not less conjectural “ether”.

Nonetheless, all possible reference frames (or at least the inertial ones in the scope of

special relativity) share the same property: the maximal speed of light in a vacuum corre-

sponding to the experiments of Michelson and Morley and the postulate in special rela-

tivity (and then transferred into general relativity). So, special relativity distinguishes me-

chanical motion, being always relative, needing two reference frames (which are inertial

in its case) to be defined, from the electromagnetic field: a universal medium replaced the

dethroned “ether”.

In fact, the electromagnetic field and the ether are very similar as to the logical con-

struction of mechanics, since both are to be meant to the whole of two or arbitrarily many

reference frames attachable to all possible parts of the whole at issue. The difference con-

sisting in the definitively zero speed of the ether from the constant of light speed in a

vacuum “” is not essential: for example, one can grant the magnitude of that constant to

be zero so that the velocities “” of all bodies possessing any nonzero mass at rest to be

interpreted as negative to it, e.g., as: 󰇛

󰇜 since   .

So, the usual perception of special relativity emphasizing the relativity of mechanical

motion needing at least two referential frames to be able to be defined just as a relation

between them, on the one hand, and the dethronement of the “ether”, one the other hand,

was rather psychological and historical because those were the newly introduced ele-

ments for the mechanical description of reality in comparison with the established (before

The “theory of quantum information” or “quantum information science” is frequently abbreviated into only “quantum

information” just as the “theory of general relativity” as only “general relativity”.

For example, as after his “logical atomism” (e.g., Russell 1956): the paper of Pakaluk (1992) suggests a detailed

investigation of Russell’s viewpoint to the fundamental place of relations in logic; that of Grattan-Guinness (2002)

means Whitehead’s philosophy of mathematics in an analogical context. Cordovil’s article (2015) discusses quantum

physics in the context of relational metaphysics.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

it) picture of the world considering motion rather as a property of the moving body rather

than as a relation to another body also moving to the former with a certain velocity.

So, two facts outlined a little above remained hidden in the “blinding light” of the

newly introduced relativity since they originated from the inherited past considering mo-

tion to be always a property of a certain moving body. Those two facts are that (1) electro-

magnetic field occupied the “throne” of the “ether”; and that (2) any motion can be any-

way again interpreted as a property of the moving body, but now to the electromagnetic

field rather than to the ether due to the postulate of not exceeding the speed of light in a

vacuum.

Consequently, the revolution of special relativity consists in the complement of rela-

tive motion to the concept of motion as a property, inherited from classical mechanics,

rather than in the replacement of the latter by the former, which is a misunderstanding

able to be illustrated by the “paradox of the twins”

. In fact, that misunderstanding is

available if and only if that paradox is interpreted to be a true logical paradox questioning

the foundations of special relativity. If, on the contrary, it is only a challenge to the usual

prejudice surprised by the fact that the twin space-traveler will be younger than the other

twin “homebody” after returning on earth, the misunderstanding at issue is absent.

However, the present paper is interested not in the paradox by itself or its solution

(by the by, being so obvious for Einstein himself that he refuted at all to discuss that “par-

adox”

), but just in the way for special relativity to be misunderstood and its foundations

to be questioned if it is granted to be a true logical antinomy. Indeed, if the space-traveler

has been moving to the homebody, and motion is only relative, one can state not worse

that the homebody has been moving oppositely to the space-traveler. If one accepts the

former viewpoint (to the reference frame of the homebody) the space-traveler should be

younger after returning to earth. However, if one grants the latter viewpoint (to the refer-

ence frame of the space-traveler), the homebody should be younger after meeting the twin

space-traveler. So, a directed logical contradiction is ostensibly generated thus as if ques-

tioning the foundations of special relativity. Not at all and here is why:

In a single sentence, only the space-traveler has been moving to the newly introduced

“ether” of electromagnetic field, and the homebody has been immovable all the time until

they meet each other on earth and just as in the case of the “classical” ether. Indeed, the

speed of electromagnetic field in a vacuum is the same from the reference frame of each

There are many papers (e.g. Ben-Ya’acov 2016; Franson 2016; Fung, Clark, Lewis, Wu 2016; de Wolf 2016; Gar-

cia-Escartin, Chamorro-Posada 2015; Gasperini 2014; Lindkvist, Sabín, Fuentes, Dragan, Svensson, Delsing, Johansson

2014; Moreau, Devaux, Lantz 2014; Sokołowski, Golda 2014; 2014a; Grøn 2013; Carvalho 2012; Friebe 2012; Ord

2012; Sfarti 2012; Sokołowski 2012; Boblest, Müller, Wunner 2011; Grøn, Braeck 2011; Lichtenegger, Iorio 2011;

Székely 2010; Grandou, Rubin 2009; Müller, King, Adis 2008; Roukema, Bajtlik 2008; Abramowicz, Bajtlik, Kluźniak

2007; Boccaletti, Catoni, Catoni 2007; 2007a; Grøn 2006; Kohler 2006; McCall 2006; Madarász, Németi, Székely

2006; Ghosal, Nepal, Das 2005; Pesic 2003; Soni 2002; Uzan, Luminet, Lehoucq, Peter 2002; Barrow, Levin 2001;

Dolby, Gull 2001; Weeks 2001; Cranor, Heider, Price 2000; Schön 1998; Debs 1996; Renshaw 1996; Chang 1993;

Vandyck 1991; Dieks 1990; Dray 1990; Harpaz 1990; Rodrigues, Oliveira 1989; Rodrigues, Rosa 1989; Cornille 1988;

Sachs 1985; Good 1982;Unruh 1981; Fremlin 1980; Perrin 1979; Greenberger 1972; Muller 1972; ) , the subject of

which is that paradox.

Einstein had formulated the analogical “clock paradox” since 1905 and preferred to speak of it rather than of that of

the twins. In fact, only the former corresponds to the spatial-like and thus reversible interpretation of time in special

relativity because the latter means time to be irreversible as aging. The link to the interpretation in the present paper is

the following: the irreversible time can be only a property, for example featuring either twin unlike the reversible time

inherent for special relativity and then for general relativity as the (conservative) generalization of the former. The

reversible time of relativity is tautologically just relational and thus the aging of either twin being a property of either

of them is irrelevant to it.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

of both twins. Nonetheless, only the space-traveler has been moving with some variable

non-zero speed “  󰇛󰇜” where “ is the distance between them in the course of the

space trip to the newly introduced “ether” of electromagnetic field though the speed of

the “electromagnetic ether” to both is always the same, “.

In other words, who is immovable to the “classical” ether is still immovable to the

“electromagnetic ether” (and this is the homebody in our case) because the latter substi-

tutes the former in special relativity conserving all features of it, and especially, any mo-

tion to be only a property of the moving body just moving in it as in a medium, which is

now an electromagnetic field rather than the ether as before. One may say that no refer-

ence frame is attachable to the electromagnetic field since this would imply the relativity

of the reverence frames of the moving body and the electromagnetic field and that misun-

derstanding featuring special relativity so that the paradox of the twins to be a true logical

paradox. Indeed, any reference frame needs a body with nonzero mass at rest to serve as

its beginning (zero point). However, this is impossible as to any electromagnetic field be-

cause its mass at rest is definitively zero.

As this is well-known, Einstein himself and practically all physicists after him have

considered general relativity as the generalization of special relativity after referring to

arbitrarily accelerated systems rather than to only inertial reference frames. One can im-

mediately notice that the ether of electromagnetic field should remain the same just as in

the case of special relativity because it is not able to be accelerated by virtue of the constant

speed of light in a vacuum to any reference frame, thus being arbitrarily accelerated to

another: the speed of light in a vacuum to both reference frames is the same. So, the ether

of electromagnetic field cannot be accelerated in any way (since its velocity is always the

same), but just the classical ether (though its velocity to any reference frame, whether ac-

celerated or inertial, is definitively zero unlike the newly “light” ether, but the constant

speeds of both to any reference frame is what is essential).

So one can state quite reasonably, that the ether of the electromagnetic field is the

same of both theories regardless of the constant or variable relative speed of any reference

frames, to which is the same universal and absolute medium as the original ether of clas-

sical mechanics. Thus, it is able to embody the logical viewpoint of property remaining

unaltered in both special relativity and general relativity, and their distinction can mean

only the opposite logical viewpoint of relations so that inertial reference frames can be

differed from accelerated ones. One can object that any light ray should propagate follow-

ing the relevant geodesic line of the global pseudo-Riemannian space, consequently devi-

ating from the geodesic line of Minkowski space as it were to do if it did not depend from

the curvature of space-time. In fact, that objection belongs to the same misunderstanding

of relativity described to the paradox of the twins:

One can distinguish the relative motion of two or more independent reference frames

from the viewpoint of the ether of electromagnetic field (just as from that of the “classical”

immovable ether), and then, of the “curved” pseudo-Riemannian space, in which they are

situated. Nonetheless, the ether of electromagnetic field remains the same from the view-

points of both and can be described exhaustively and mathematically by the “straight”

Minkowski space being identical in both cases rather than by the “curved” pseudo-Rie-

mannian space as in the former viewpoint, that of the electromagnetic “ether” itself.

So, the misunderstanding analogical to that sketched above to the “paradox of the

twins” consists in the misleading expectation that the picture of the world should be the

same from any reference frames in relative motion to each other, on the one hand, and

from the single viewpoint of the electromagnetic “ether” (in fact, analogical to the classical

one due to the “absolute” viewpoint though that “absolute viewpoint” is now moving

with the velocity of light in a vacuum). On the contrary, the two pictures of the world are

really opposite: the former is “curved”, described by pseudo-Riemannian space, but the

latter is “straight”, described by Minkowski space.

Since the former is linked to gravitation by general relativity, and the case of Min-

kowski space can be thought as a description of the absence of gravitation, one can con-

clude that the misunderstanding, “started” from the paradox of the twins, then “passed”

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

into the ostensible universality of pseudo-Riemannian space (wrongly implying that the

velocity of light in a vacuum should be different to reference frames accelerated to each

other), can be naturally continued in the incorrect postulate about the analogically univer-

sality of gravitation including untruly the ether of electromagnetic field “by itself”.

The misunderstanding may be also interpreted by the principle of general relativity

(sometimes called “general covariance”), according to which all physical laws are to be

invariant to any reference frames, including arbitrarily accelerated to each other. The mis-

understanding consists in attaching (“illegally”) a reference frame to the electromagnetic

“ether”. Then, gravitation, really being universal according to the principle of general rel-

ativity, is wrongly postulated to the electromagnetic “ether” ostensibly by virtue of the

same principle: though this is false since the principle relates to all reference frames, but

no reference frames can be assigned to the electromagnetic “ether” definitively.

One can think that the misunderstanding “continued” as above is rather artificial.

Not at all and here is why. Gravity is not more universal than the principle of general

relativity prescribes. So, the usual understanding of “quantum gravitation” (i.e., as an in-

teraction to the other three ones described by the Standard model and particularly, allow-

ing for “secondary quantization”) falls in the class of that misunderstanding. This is so

because the Standard model can be related to the electromagnetic “ether” alone (without

any reference frame attached to it), but not to the case of two or more reference frames in

any relative and arbitrarily accelerated motion to each other, necessary to be defined their

physical interaction as gravitation.

Speaking loosely, gravitation needs “parts” to be defined and thus being irrelevant

to the case of a single one, what the Standard model describes. However, the Standard

model itself (and in turn) needs a single one whole and thus being irrelevant to the case

of “parts” and their gravitation to each other. Thus, one can immediately notice that

“quantum gravitation” is literally an oxymoron since “quantum” can relate to a single

whole, and “gravitation”, on the contrary, only to the parts of that whole, but not to its

parts.

One may see that the interpretation of “quantum gravitation” is not quite correct

since it identifies “quantum” and the “adjective of the Standard model” (using it attribu-

tively). In other words, an oxymoron is only “the Standard model gravitation” rather than

the wider class of “quantum gravitation” therefore considering the complement of the

former to the latter, in the framework of which both entanglement and quantum infor-

mation fall.

Indeed, the unit of information, a bit, means the elementary division of a whole into

two equal parts. Then, information (and quantum information as far as it is a generaliza-

tion of “classical” information whether “conservative” or not) can be accordingly inter-

preted to be a quantity referring to the division of the whole to parts or unifying them.

Consequently, one conjectures that just the theory of quantum information (describing

particularly all phenomena of entanglement) is able to overcome the seeming contradic-

tion of quantum gravity by elucidating that the Standard model (or the “classical” quan-

tum mechanics obeying Pauli’s paradigm) does not exhaust all claiming to be quantum.

Thus, the investigation for that kind of quantum gravitation which can be included

in the conservatively generalized Standard model is meaningless, a mistake in definition

just as “the Standard model gravitation” is an oxymoron in the sense above: it can be

thought as a corollary from the continuation of relativity, started from the paradox of the

twins as a true logical paradox. Vice vesta as well: the absence of any theory of quantum

gravity in the aforementioned framework is still one corroboration that the misunder-

standing at issue is really a misunderstanding of relativity.

Another illustration can be the zero curvature of the universe

. Indeed, if the uni-

verse is interpreted to be a single one (even admitting the multiverse theory), gravitation,

respectively any nonzero global curvature of it should be irrelevant just again by virtue

For example, Rees (1984); Pierpaoli (2000); Masi et al (2002); Wang, Gong, Su (2005) Vardanuan, Trotta, Silk

(2009); Ahmed, Bamba, Salama (2020); Efstathiou, Gratton (2020).

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

of the same misunderstanding of relativity. The numerous experiments confirming that

the global curvature of the universe is zero witness that the discussed misunderstanding

of relativity is a real misunderstanding.

Sometimes, the “thought experiment” of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (1935) is

called to be a “paradox” though not in a proper logical meaning. The authors themselves

suggested it as reductio ad absurdum granting initially that quantum mechanics is complete

and then inferring by it that, on the contrary, it is incomplete. However, in the present

context, the EPR argument can be unified with the paradox of the twins being dual or

complementary to each other in a generalized sense

Indeed, the paradox of the twins is not a real logical paradox, but only opposable to

the expectation of common sense’s prejudice. Its interpretation as a true logical paradox

is a misunderstanding of relativity as this is elucidated above in detail. The “ether” of the

electromagnetic field conserves the privileged viewpoint of the classical ether, abandon-

ing only the option of any reference frame attachable to it.

As a result, the viewpoints to or from the electromagnetic “ether” turn out not to be

reflexive. Mechanical motion is always relative, but nonetheless what the electromagnetic

ether seems to be is the same from any reference frame and thus can be interpreted as the

same shared property of all reference frames. The theory of relativity whether special or

general being just a theory of relativity cannot be extended to the electromagnetic “ether”

exactly in the same way, in which it is applicable to any reference frame. The modified

ether of the electromagnetic field keeps the absoluteness of its classical predecessor

though in an also relevantly modified sense.

One can consider both theories of relativity from a proper logical viewpoint, accord-

ing to which motion is inherently a relation as relative motion of two or more reference

frames. Nonetheless, the electromagnetic “ether” is postulated to be an absolute “prop-

erty” relevant to any reference frame remaining the same (which is natural after it is a

property rather than a relation). One can conjecture an alternative (or “dual”) theory of

“propertial” motion to the original one of relative motion, and then demonstrate that

quantum mechanics is in fact that theory though not placarding to be “propertial”.

Then, it might not describe motion relatively analogically to the opposite trouble of

both theories of relativity to consider it “propertially” (i.e., as property just as classical

mechanics tends or at least admits for it to be meant). The absence of quantum gravitation,

originating from Einstein’s general relativity as its generalization, within the strict frame-

work of the Standard model is a corroboration. Nonetheless, in both theories of general

relativity and the Standard model, the quantity of mass able to mediate between the two

dual viewpoints to motion is available: accordingly, the principle of equality of “inertial

mass” and “gravitational mass”

, on the one hand, and the Higgs mechanism of the spon-

taneous violation of symmetry, on the other hand. Both will be considered sequentially to

be demonstrated their duality in the sketched above sense:

In fact, “inertial mass” means mass as a property of any moving body. Thus (and

particularly), one can define “mass at rest” as the mass of any body at zero velocity. That

mass at rest is determined to be identically zero for the newly introduced “ether” of elec-

tromagnetic field, but nonzero for any particle moving with any velocity less than that of

light in a vacuum (however not equal to it). The quantity of “speed” (and therefore that

of acceleration) is necessarily relative if it features any body with any velocity less than

that of light in a vacuum. On the contrary and as this is elucidated above to the “misun-

derstanding of relativity”, it is necessarily “propertial” (or attributive) to the electromag-

netic “ether” as a direct corollary from the postulate of the speed of light in a vacuum.

The idea for the mutual duality of the “paradoxes” of the twins and EPR is suggested in another paper (Penchev

1997).

For example, Einstein’s principle of equivalence is modified to quantum mechanics in the paper of Nauenberg (2016);

that of Börner and Schlieder (1980) discusses it with respect to quantum mechanical one-particle state.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

One can conclude by combining both considerations in the previous paragraph that

the quantity of mass at rest appears in both theories of relativity if and only if one com-

mutes the description “by property” and that “by relation” after postulating their equiv-

alence by virtue of the fundamental equality of inertial and gravitational masses. Then,

Einstein’s famous equation

“  ”, utilized in mass culture as an “emblem” or presentiment of the atom bomb,

can be deduced again in virtue of the same equivalence as to the particular case of mass

at rest able to be transformed into “pure energy” replacing the “propertial” viewpoint to

a relative one, inherent for both theories of relativity.

As a transition to the dual consideration of the Standard model to the spontaneous

breaking of symmetry by the Higgs mechanism, one might analogically speak of the spon-

taneous breaking of the “propertial” symmetry of the electromagnetic “ether” by a newly

coined “Einstein mechanism of relativity” able to generate mass at rest. Even more, one

can infer it only logically, after commuting “property” and “relation” corresponding to a

fundamental, maybe ontological “breaking of symmetry” passing from the one to the

other.

Indeed, any property and even any single entity is symmetrical to itself by itself. Any

identity is identical to itself and thus it is able to be interpreted to its identical twin if it is

somehow “halved”. On the contrary, the relation “breaks” the initial symmetry of two

identical twins after admitting for them not to be identical, but only similar to each other

in general, just as siblings to identical twins. Speaking figuratively, one can think of break-

ing the symmetry, after which mass at rest appears in both theory of relativities to the

initial electromagnetic “ether”, by the metaphor as the way of any siblings to differ from

any identical twins as the distinguishability featuring classical mechanics to the indistin-

guishability of quantum entities.

Following the suggested analogy to the Higgs mechanism, one can interpret the way,

in which it admits breaking the symmetry, to fall in the same class of the logical mapping

of “property” into “relation” therefore “expelling” the non-identical pair in general, being

in any relation to each other, from “Eden”, where they had been “identical twins” in a

perfect harmony to each other.

Returning the proper description of the Higgs mechanism in the Standard model,

one interprets it as the destruction of the initial “electro-weak” interactions into two ones,

electromagnetic and weak however so that the same mechanism for appearing mass at

rest is shared by strong interaction (for example or as an illustration to be considered as

two independent or “orthogonal” electroweak interactions, each of which obeys the Higgs

mechanism). So (and particularly), both weak and strong interactions in the Standard

model are able to describe mass at rest in the proper language of quantum mechanics, the

separable complex Hilbert space, and borrowed by the Standard model: now interpreted

to be analogical to the “propertial” language of the electromagnetic “ether” of relativity.

Meaning that, one may say that the following four descriptions can be equated in a

sense; namely those: (1) weak and strong interactions in the Standard model and sharing

the Higgs mechanism; (2) the alleged or suggested “quantum gravity” turning out to be

beyond the Standard model; (3) Einstein’s theory of gravitation by general relativity; (4)

the entanglement phenomena described by the theory of quantum information. All of

them mean the same, however describing it in its proper language, resulting totally in

four descriptions in four languages so different from each other that it is as if they wish to

describe four absolutely independent and non-intersecting areas of phenomena.

So, the problem consists, in fact, rather in the translation between them and in the

discovery of a “Rosetta stone” allowing for the “inscriptions” of each of them to be com-

pared and the corresponding quadrilingual dictionary to be created. That metaphor al-

lows for rethinking the link of Einstein’s general relativity to the hypothetical theory of

quantum gravity, the pair of which is used to be likened to Maxwell’s electromagnetic

theory and quantum electrodynamics.

However, accepting the idea about the quadrilingual translation of the same phe-

nomena after the electromagnetic analogy, one is to conclude: (1) general relativity

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

corresponds to the theory of quantum information describing entanglement; however (2)

both are equally exact unlike the less precise or approximative theory of Maxwell to quan-

tum electrodynamic. The only distinction between the former two descriptions consists in

the corresponding mathematical formalism: pseudo-Riemannian space in the case of gen-

eral relativity versus non-Hermitian operators in the separable complex Hilbert space in

the case of quantum information. So, the metaphor of a “translation” between them means

in fact the absolute formal meaning of mappings between them eventually obeying addi-

tional conditions determined after physical considerations.

As to the usual interpretation of quantum gravity, following literally the analogy

with Maxwell’s theory and quantum electrodynamics, it is rather a misunderstanding re-

lying on the misreading of the way for general relativity to connect to the Standard model,

because this is possible only by the mediation of quantum information. So, one of the four

languages, namely that of the hypothetical quantum gravity is rather auxiliary since it can

be thoroughly reduced to the other three ones:

General relativity is dual or complementary to the alleged quantum gravity: as to the

macroscopic, astronomic or cosmological phenomena, to which general relativity is for-

mulated. Quantum information for entanglement describes what quantum gravity should

mean

, but using a different thesaurus of concepts since it is inherently beyond the Stand-

ard model, and common scientific sense’s “quantum gravity” was expected to be within

its framework though somehow generalized.

Finally, the Standard model itself and even within its rigorous and non-generalized

framework means again what would be to be the proper subject of quantum gravity

though by different names, notions, and conceptions: by the Higgs mechanism allowing

for mass at rest to appear in both weak and strong interactions, by the weak and strong

interactions themselves, and by confinement in the latter not allowing for the experi-

mental observations of free quarks recognizable by their fractal electromagnetic charge

and corresponding behavior in an electromagnetic field.

In fact, “confinement” is an “illegal” or at least “semi-legal” interaction in the Stand-

ard model admitting “legally” only the well-known three ones: weak, electromagnetic,

and strong. It does not possess its own field or boson(s) transferring it though at a super-

short distance conditioning a huge mass of its one or more bosons. Even being extremely

exotic, those properties are not yet an obstacle for the theory of confinement consistent

with the Standard model. The real unsurmountable contrariety is its paradoxical property

to be stronger at a greater distance (though tiny even to the size of an atom) so that the

mass of its boson(s) should be negative (at least effectively) and unlike all the other three

interactions therefore allowing for “anti-gravitation”, i.e. “gravitational repulsion” in-

stead of cosmic attraction, which has been recognized to be universal since Newton’s age.

Just that “gravitational repulsion” of the hypothetical boson(s) of the not less hypothetical

“confinement field” might hold and keep the quarks from “flying free”. However, no

The link of quantum gravity and quantum information or entanglement is an idea not unexpected for contemporary

physics: on the contrary, a series of papers (Kay 2018; Ma 2018; Qi 2018; Donnelly, Giddings 2017; Marletto, Vedral

2017; Ruiz, Giacomini, Brukner 2017; Lee, Kim, Lee 2015; 2013; Bruschi, Sabín, White, Baccetti, Oi, Fuentes 2014;

Nomura, Varela, Weinberg 2013; Resconi, Licata, Fiscaletti 2013; Dvali, Gomez 2009; Fursaev 2008; Girelli, Livine

2005; Moffat 2004; Peres 2004) discusses it, including information conservation (e.g. Guo, Cai 2018) or information

theory (Kempf 2018; Kempf, Martin 2008; Sato 2007; Carol 2005). Furthermore, the pathway to quantum gravity by

the mediation of information or quantum information is often traced (as in the present paper) by more or less philosoph-

ical considerations or arguments (e.g. Norton 2020; Marletto, Vedral 2017; Torromé, Letizia, Liberati 2015; Vassallo,

Esfeld 2014; Amelino-Camelia 2013; 2004; 2003; 2002; Slowik 2013; Liberati, Maccione 2011; Smolin 2011; Major

2010; Rosen 2008; Sudarsky 2007; 2005; Weinfurtner, Liberati, Visser 2006; O’Hara 2005; Srikanth 2001; Prugoveki

1996; De Sabbata, Sivaram, Borzeszkowski, Treder 1991; Sibelius 1989; Rayski 1982; Rosen 1982; Neumann 1978;

Boulware, Deser 1975; Reuse 1974).

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

experimental confirmation of anti-gravitation or the fractal electromagnetic charges fea-

turing quarks

All ideas about the confirmation or refutation of the similarity of confinement to the

three basic interactions of the Standard model face the problem about the colossal energies

as well as the corresponding accelerators able to give those energies to elementary parti-

cles for relevant experiments. However, the translation from the language of the Standard

model into that of quantum information and entanglement allows for cheap experiments

not needing huge energies and exceptionally expensive technical devices (e.g., as the

Large Hadron Collider at CERN) for giving those to quantum entities. It would permit for

the reinterpretation of all problems of the Standard model, connected with the implemen-

tation of experiments, sophisticated and too difficult practically, to be resolved by means

of their equivalent reformulation in terms of quantum information.

However, the translation between four (or rather only three) languages runs into a

fundamental theoretical obstacle: the relation and unification of energy and information.

It is comparable with the famous historical precedent symbolized by the cited already

equation of Einstein,   , and consisting in the analogical unification of mass (or

mass at rest) and energy. The later remains anyway in the framework of physics or phi-

losophy of physics (“at best”), but it has not shaken up the fundamental organization of

cognition in Modernity as the translation at issue and which can be eventually induced

by the Nobel Prize in 2022 for physics, particularly explaining why it was postponed so

long; the “reluctance” to be awarded:

Indeed, two fundamental philosophical essences are initially opposed in it and called

by Descartes “body” and “mind” or “object” and “subject” by German classical philoso-

phy. They are inherently gapped by an abyss surmountable only by humans (or human-

kind as a whole) and its unique capability to think, conditioning the domination of homo

sapiens sapiens over the world. In other words, both are the philosophical basis of human

chauvinism, which all the cognition of Modernity obeys.

However, if both mass and energy unified by Einstein are on the side of “body” or

“object”, information including quantum information is to be situated on the opposed

“shore” of the Cartesian or modern “abyss”, that of “mind” and “subject” therefore ques-

tioning human chauvinism itself and even the justification of the human domination over

the world, i.e., an obvious “heresy” comparable or even outweighing that of heliocentrism

or Giordano Bruno’s pyre. Of course, our epoch is much more civilized so that all those

excesses are excluded nowadays. Nonetheless, what the Nobel Prize at issue proclaims to

be a scientific fact contradicts common sense’s prejudice or the establishment of the soci-

ety and social order even more than heliocentrism:

It hints that “mind” and “body”, at least particularly as information and energy, are

to be unified, and an equation, though maybe in a generalized sense, analogical to Ein-

stein’s famous

“  ” should exist to link them quantitatively. This can be said more precisely by the

distinction between classical information measured by bits and quantum information, the

unit of which is a qubit. The intersection of the two alternatives of a bit is zero, however

that of a qubit and its dual counterpart is definitively nonzero and limited by the Planck

constant as its low bound. Its physical dimension is action (just as that of the Planck con-

stant) though any single qubit is physically dimensionless, seeming too paradoxical at first

glance.

Indeed, just as classical information, quantum information is dimensionless, but the

intersection of the two dual counterparts of the latter, unlike those of the former: being

zero, is nonzero and finite, with the physical dimension of action and underneath by the

Planck constant. So, one might infer the physical world, as far as it obeys quantum laws,

from the duality of a certain mathematical structure, whether the separable complex Hil-

bert space of classical quantum mechanics or the qubit Hilbert space of quantum infor-

mation, equivalent to the former under a few rather technical or conventional conditions.

At least, sufficiently repeated and known to me.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

Furthermore, and being really paradoxical, the intersection of two dimensionless quanti-

ties, both being quantum information, turns out to be physically dimensionful, and said

more exactly, being the physical quantity of action.

Then speaking more or less loosely, one might state, that the origin of the world, the

universe or the being itself is mathematical in the final analysis, and the “dark phase of

the universe” meant by entanglement and quantum information is that smooth transition,

or the “bridge over the Cartesian abyss” between mathematics and physics, unlike its

“light phase”, in which they are absolutely divided from each other, but being only the

visible tip of the iceberg, the underwater foundation of which is the dark phase of the

universe being in turn both physical and mathematical simultaneously; and dark matter

and dark energy are granted to be properly physical by contemporary physics. The con-

cept inherent to the dark phase is information including quantum information since the

latter is both mathematical and physical simultaneously, and its conservation can describe

quantitatively the relation of mathematical and physical entities in the single and indivisi-

ble “ocean” of the dark phase of the universe.

The universe appears “ex nihilo” not by means of the mythical Big Bang, only an

expression of humankind’s superstition and originating rather from religion than from

science, but from its dark phase, and thus, “from mathematics” and obeying mathematical

laws in the final analysis. The Big Bang is only a “shadow” on the wall of Plato’s “cave”,

however the real source of that shadow, which people chained in their ignorance, preju-

dice, superstition and "common sense" interpret as the “Big Bang”, is a certain mathemat-

ical and thus nonmaterial structure, a particular case of which is the physical world.

Unfortunately, and following the same analogy to “  ”, one can immediately

admit or choose the eventual option of a new weapon, which can be tentatively named “I-

bomb”, “informational bomb”, which would be related to the existent nuclear weapons

as the latter to the conventional ones. Humankind might be able to destroy not only itself

or the life on earth, even not only the planet Earth itself, but the being at all, at least in the

neighborhood, e.g., within a considerable part of the Solar system. Of course, only future

investigations might elucidate whether this is theoretically possible or that idea belongs

only to the sci-fi area. Science can offer only stronger and stronger instruments: human-

kind decides whether to utilize them for good or evil; and usually for both.

3. QUANTUM INFORMATION VERSUS QUANTUM MECHANICS

As this is well-known, quantum mechanics appeared to rethink mechanical motion

after the discrete limit of the Planck constant needing inherently to be a conservative gen-

eralization of classical mechanics since the apparatus measuring any quantum entity is

always described by its smooth differential equations and moreover: “it is discrete” and

“it is continuous” (being a necessary condition for “smoothness”) can be interpreted as a

proposition and its logical negation (since “it is continuous” is equivalent to “it is not dis-

crete”).

So, the inherent duality or “complementarity” of quantum mechanics can be thor-

oughly described only logically: by the condition for a conservative generalization of any

proposition in a way to include its logical negation. Indeed, complementarity (though his-

torically appeared in the specific form embedded in quantum mechanics) features all the

class definable as a conservative generalization of any proposition to its direct logical ne-

gation.

Abandoning temporarily the historical pathway, in which the conception and inter-

pretation of quantum mechanics is really generated, one can notice that definition of a bit

of information is isomorphic (or more precisely, “anti-isomorphic” in the sense that the

corresponding “directions” are opposite to each other) to that of the class at issue. So, still

even the complementarity of quantum mechanics or its wave-particle duality (or respec-

tively, the duality of its basic formalism of the separable complex Hilbert space, which

follows from it) involve information in quantum mechanics though in an implicit way.

Furthermore, information in quantum mechanics can be considered as a corollary

from the definition of physical quantity as a Hermitian operator into the separable

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

complex Hilbert space, to which an unitary mapping of a probability density distribution

and thus a certain quantity of information can be attached to it since information can be

defined to any pair of probability density distributions (e.g. as in Kolmogorov’s definition

of information

However, the real introduction of quantum information in quantum mechanics was

due to entanglement and those phenomena, to which it is relevant. The unit of quantum

information can be interpreted as a “unit of entanglement” being referable to the quantum

correlation of two “namesake axes” of two entangled separable complex Hilbert space (i.e.



 and 

) belonging correspondingly to the one or to the other of them since it

is defined as the normed superposition of two orthogonal subspaces of the separable com-

plex Hilbert space (i.e. as    where   are two complex numbers so that:

  ).

Nonetheless, a qubit can be not worse interpreted by two successive “axes” of the

separable complex Hilbert space namely  and 󰇛󰇜 therefore allowing for

the representation of the separable complex Hilbert space as an equivalent qubit Hilbert

space. Furthermore, one can demonstrate that the cited “canonical” definition of a qubit

is equivalent to the generalization of information to infinite sets or series, i.e. to quantum

information as far it is measured in qubits just as information by bits (Penchev 2020 July

10):

Indeed, a qubit is the choice of a single alternative between an infinite set of alterna-

tives just as a bit is the choice between two equally probable alternatives, and the quantity

of “classical” information means the number

of those elementary choices, each of which

is a bit of information. Consequently, the concepts of both “qubit” and “quantum infor-

mation” measured by it necessarily involves the axiom of choice, for the choice between

an infinite set of alternatives to be always possible in turn in order to be any qubit unam-

biguously definable.

The necessity of the proper mathematical axiom of choice implied by the concept of

“qubit” suggests that the theory of quantum information should be a mathematical disci-

pline, eventually applied or applicable to quantum mechanics, but divided from physical

reality by the Cartesian abyss just as any mathematical model from reality according to

the fundamental organization of knowledge, for which the name and concept of “epis-

teme” coined by Michel Foucault can be utilized. Not at all, and here is why:

The theorems about the absence of hidden variables in quantum mechanics (Neu-

mann 1932; Kochen, Specker 1967) imply that quantum mechanics itself, though being an

experimental physical science, implies the axiom of choice, furthermore in a way quite

elementary and obvious. One considers any quantity of any quantum system before meas-

urement. It cannot be well-ordered in any way since any well-ordering is equivalent to a

hidden variable, which is impossible to exist by virtue of the theorems at issue.

On the other hand, the same quantity is well-ordered after any measurement of it,

for example by the parameter (variable) of “time of registration” by the readings of the

apparatus. So, one is to identify the states before measurement and after measurement for

quantum mechanics to be able to be an objective experimental science just as all the rest

In fact, the fundamental contributions of Kolmogorov (e.g. Cover, Gacs, Gray 1989) are two explicit ones and an

implicit one consisting in the eventual equating of the former two ones known correspondingly as: (1) the definition of

information as the relative entropy of two probability density distributions and (2) “Kolmogorov’s complexity”, which

is really another algorithmic and discrete definition of information. Their implicit equating involves the main idea of

quantum mechanics: the unification of the discrete and continuous (or smooth) descriptions of mechanical motion and

even that of quantum information since both definitions refer to the same essence, that of information, on the one hand,

and to the unification of discrete motion with continuous motion, on the other hand.

That number is a rational one at least because it can be interpreted as the result of an actual measuring procedure by

the unit of a bit of information.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

within the framework of physics. That identification in turn implies the well-ordering

“theorem” because the state before measurement can be well-ordered only by means of it,

which is necessary for one to be able to measure it and thus to transform it into the same

state after measurement

. As far as the well-ordering “theorem” is equivalent to the ax-

iom of choice, the latter is also deduced.

In other words and speaking loosely, the concept of quantum information (since it

follows from the theorems about the absence of hidden variables in quantum mechanics)

in turn implies that an experimental physical science such as quantum mechanics implies

the axiom of choice, belonging to a fundamental mathematical theory such as set theory

and involving a too controversial concept of “actual infinity” often alleged to be the source

of true logical paradoxes in mathematics.

Interpreted philosophically, this means that quantum information (respectively, the

awarded by the Nobel Prize experiments demonstrating entanglement) makes obvious

the fact that yet even quantum mechanics has linked mathematical model and reality: a

“heresy deserving a pyre” from the viewpoint of the episteme of Modernity by violating

the “sacral” dogma of the Cartesian “abyss” gapped “mind” (for “mathematical model”)

and “body” (for “experiments”). Particularly, this can also explain the resistance and re-

luctance in relation to the Nobel Prize for experiments demonstrating entanglement: one

might say metaphorically that “model” and “reality”, “mind” and “body” turn out to be

“entangled” by the fact itself of the Nobel prize for physics in 2022. The development of

science breaks the “wise” constitution suggested by Pauli as the particle paradigm of en-

ergy conservation in quantum mechanics, which culminates in the Standard model in the

final analysis.

The separable complex Hilbert space can be interpreted as the free variable of quan-

tum information once it has been modeled by the qubit state. Any physical state as far as

it can be realized to be a quantum one is a certain value of that variable, but furthermore

it is fundamentally indistinguishable from its mathematical model. Involving non-unitar-

ian and non-Hermitian operators as a generalization of what is to be “quantity” in quan-

tum mechanics, now forced by quantum information and relevant to entanglement (i.e.

Einstein's “spooky action at a distance”), physical quantities belonging to abstract mental

entities such as mathematical models can be assigned in an absolutely rigorous and scien-

tific way by sharing the concept and quantity of information.

The theory of quantum information is sometimes granted to be another, still one in-

terpretation of quantum mechanics along with Born’s probabilistic interpretation, that of

many worlds originating from the PhD thesis of Hugh Everett III, Bohm’s “realistic” in-

terpretation, the initial Copenhahgen interpretation, for example advocated by Niels Bohr

in his debates with Einstein, etc., etc. However, quantum information is much more than

still one interpretation of quantum mechanics among many others. It predicts new phe-

nomena, those of entanglement and their existence can be really confirmed, now already

established to be absolutely recognized by the virtue of the authority of the Nobel prize.

Until now, it has been recognized as an applied and technical area of quantum me-

chanics including three main subdomains: namely, quantum communication, quantum

computer, and quantum cryptography justified by virtue of their implementations. None-

theless, quantum information has been developed into a huge deposit of fundamental

ideas relevant not only to the foundations of quantum mechanics (and thus relevant to

those of physics, chemistry, and natural science), but also to the theory of information, the

foundations of mathematics as well as to a series of philosophical disciplines such as epis-

temology, ontology, philosophy of science, philosophy of mathematics, philosophy of

physics and chemistry, and especially, of quantum mechanics, philosophy of probability

and information, etc.

However, the contributions in the enumerated domains rely on the phenomena not

ultimately confirmed experimentally, admitting more or less possible “backdoors” for

The study of Doplicher (2019) means measurement in quantum mechanics in relation to the “EPR paradox” and that

of Muynck (1995) links it to the simultaneous “interpretation of quantum mechanics and relativity theory”.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

“advocates of the devil” to question the numerous available results in experiments of en-

tanglement. Those “backdoors” for the interpretation of the experiments and their results

by causes and reasons different from the confirmation of entanglement were much more

than usually due to the fact that the only observable effects of entanglement (or of any

quantum correlations) consist in the deviation from the statistic correlations expected in

the case if entanglement did not exist in nature. For example, if one observes some osten-

sibly inexplicable correlations between two groups of experiments arbitrarily remote from

each other, one can suggests some unknown hidden shared basis in them and able to ex-

plain absolutely classically, trivially or as a technical imprecision of the joint experiments

rather than by involving that “mystical spooky action of a distance” seeming to contradict

the principle of scientificity at all and rejected by so great minds as Einstein.

One can say that too prolonged (about a century) scientific “legal trial” started by the

debates of Einstein and Bohr (described, e.g., by the latter in: Bohr 1957), in which the

former was the “plaintiff” and the latter was the “defendant”, finally ended by an ultimate

judgment as to what the awarding by the Nobel Prize can be interpreted. Though literally

and formally that judgment seems to be in favor of Bohr, many objections of the “plaintiff”

Einstein are also meant, achieving a reconciliation of them as many legal judgments or

scientific resolutions and decisions tend.

Indeed, the exceptionally famous article of Einstein, Podolsky, and Rosen (1935) fre-

quently cited as the one of the sources of the idea of quantum information and trans-

formed by means of Bell’s equations in the experiments awarded by the Nobel Prize in

2022 can be interpreted not only “apophatically”, but also “cataphatically” in the follow-

ing exact meaning. “Apophatically”, the paper means that quantum mechanics is “incom-

plete” as a proof by the method of reductio ad absurdum. However, the same missing com-

plement of quantum mechanics, named as that “spooky action at a distance”, which is

renamed nowadays as “quantum correlations” or “entanglement” and established as in-

disputable scientific facts, and demonstrated explicitly, i.e. in a “cataphatic” way in the

cited paper.

Furthermore, the “spooky action at a distance” contradicts the principle of locality

embedded in the postulate that the speed of light in a vacuum is the maximal possible one

in the physical world and only at the cost of zero mass at rest (i.e., only for “pure energy”).

The epithet “spooky” is pejorative, corresponding to the statement that quantum mechan-

ics admits nonlocality unlike special and general relativity identifying the physical with

the local and according to which any nonlocality implies “ghosts” in physics. The usual

“apophatic” interpretation of the paper means that those “ghosts” are not described in

quantum mechanics, therefore remaining incomplete, in a “respectable” (i.e., local) way

relevant and “befitting” in physics.

Then, if special relativity can be linked to the local “half” of quantum mechanics since

the two theories are quite consistent to each other as quantum electrodynamics demon-

strates explicitly, the other, nonlocal or “spooky” part of it should by identified with gen-

eral relativity able to describe the same mystic phenomena in virtue of their nonlocality

in an absolutely “venerable” way only “worthy” for the honest reputation of physics. That

interpretation of the “triple paper” can be called “cataphatic” and thus corresponds to

physics in the 21th century and the establishment of entanglement and quantum correla-

tions. In other words, once that scandalous “spooky action at a distance” is anyway a sci-

entific fact, it might be alternatively described also locally, which general relativity does

in fact, following the “cataphatic” approach to the article at issue.

So, the present paper shares and restates that reading of it since the last Nobel Prize

in physics establishes entanglement as an absolutely confirmed scientific fact. Then, the

interpretation of entanglement as the cherished “quantum gravity”, though in a sense dis-

cernibly different from the usual one and elucidated in detail in the present paper, has

been pioneered. Or by synthesizing in a single sentence and rather aphoristically, the

“smooth” gravity described by general relativity is only the local mapping of the hypo-

thetical “quantum gravity”, which turns out to be nonlocal and identifiable with entan-

glement.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

Here, the “local” and “nonlocal” are supplied by exact mathematical and physical

meanings: within or out of the “light cone” though being generalized and “curved” being

homeomorphically transformed from Minkowski space into pseudo-Riemannian space;

and even more, the mapping at issue is properly quantum gravitation by identifying op-

erators in pseudo-Riemannian space with non-Hermitian operators in the qubit Hilbert

space and therefore necessarily involving the medium of qubits and quantum information

as the relevant basis for their unification.

In other words, if the first “half” of that mapping, namely operators in pseudo-Rie-

mannian space has been established to be a very well confirmed scientific fact since the

experiments confirmed general relativity i.e. for more than one century, the second “half”

of the mapping, namely non-Hermitian operators in the qubit Hilbert space (or equiva-

lently, in the separable complex Hilbert space of “classical” quantum mechanics) re-

mained “branded and reviled” not so much by Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance” as

by Pauli’s “particle paradigm” of quantum mechanics, furthermore professed and de-

creed to be its “official religion” by the Standard model.

Thus, the Nobel Prize for entanglement and quantum information in 2022, by the by,

101 years later than Einstein's Nobel Prize in 1921 though shyly formulated to be "for his

services to Theoretical Physics, and especially for his discovery of the law of the photoe-

lectric effect"

, establishes the second “half” of that mapping, namely non-Hermitian op-

erators in the qubit Hilbert space as an indisputable, very well confirmed scientific fact.

Though only the second half of the mapping is explicitly established, the mapping itself,

anyway rather implicitly, too, since its first half has been recognized for about one cen-

tury.

One can accordingly conclude that though the explicit significance of the Nobel Prize

for entanglement and quantum information refers to themselves explicitly, the much more

important significance of it is implicit and consists in pioneering the pathway to the map-

ping itself, i.e., to the interpretation of that gravitation of general relativity as a nonstand-

ard (or more precisely anti-nonstandard

) interpretation of the cherished theory of quan-

tum gravitation as what the theory of entanglement and quantum information turns out

to be.

An unexpected, but very instructive “back reflection” (including philosophical) in

the “picture of the world” is the understanding of gravitation, respectively mass at rest,

initially the gravitational one, but then also the inertial one in virtue of their equivalence

postulated in general relativity, as the local counterpart of nonlocality. If physical time

needing and giving rice to a certain well-ordering (therefore necessarily implying the

well-ordering “theorem” and the axiom of choice if both are equivalent to each other),

mass at rest turns out to be its shady or dual counterpart where their product has the

physical dimension of action, which is a smooth quantity (and only smooth as to classical

physics), on the one hand, but nonetheless and simultaneously, a discrete quantity being

necessarily quantized for the fundamental Planck constant.

So, though both mass (respectively, energy after Einstein's “  ”) and time are

continuous quantities, their product having the physical dimension of action is that

“meta-quantity” in which the synthesis of the discrete and continuous quantities is al-

ready possible and which leads to involving information, whether classical or quantum,

as physical quantity, even the most fundamental one.

https://www.nobelprize.org/prizes/physics/1921/summary/

The sense of the newly coined adjective “anti-nonstandard” is the following. If one means “nonstandard”, for exam-

ple, as in the meaning of Robinson’s “nonstandard analysis” or more generally as any countable model of any uncount-

able infinite mathematical structure after the Löwenheim - Skolem theorem, then the corresponding reverse mapping (if

any) can be called to be just “anti-nonstandard”, always in the final analysis touching the “problem of the nonstandard

bijection”, or more loosely speaking, weather a bit of information is a bijection or not. The problem is discussed in detail

in various contexts in other papers (e.g. Penchev 2021 July 8; Penchev 2021 March 9; Penchev 2021 August 24).

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

One can involve the following metaphor or visualization: the quantity of action as

the product of mass (respectively energy), as if “back in time”, and time itself in its proper

direction can exist only in the quantum superposition where or when both directions of

time are “mixed”. Then or there, time and mass (energy) cannot be differentiated from

each other yet, when or where the real “Big Bang” occurs permanently, and in an omni-

present and omnitemporal way, therefore violating energy conservation and Pauli’s par-

ticle paradigm of the “classical” quantum mechanics.

The mythical Big Bang of the ostensible beginning of the universe is not an actual

event, but the hypothetical and integral projection back in time of the permanent, omni-

present and omnitemporal real pico-“Big Bangs” in any point of spacetime, where or

when energy constantly appears “ex nihilo” only in virtue of its division from time (or

respectively spacetime), only after which the standard physical picture of the world is

valid and energy conservation as well. That picture means two main parts: the stage of

spacetime, only within which, i.e., only locally, anything claiming to be physical and pos-

sessing mass and energy can exist.

The real medium of those pico-“Big Bangs” being always and everywhere in any

point consists just in that division of the two dual counterparts of spacetime and energy-

momentum, where-when the process itself of division can be exhaustively described by

the Einstein field equation of general relativity as the gravitational interaction, in fact, by

means of the spacetime tensor yet not absolutely distinguishable from the corresponding

energy-momentum tensor, where-when the quantity of their indistinguishability is just

that of gravitation, furthermore being smooth.

Nonetheless, the emancipation of the physical being, featured by energy-momentum,

from its inherent stage of spacetime can be described alternatively, but equivalently as a

discrete leap and due to this, outlined by quantum mechanics. Then, the entanglement of

spacetime and energy- momentum is the alternative, but equivalent representation of the

gravitational interaction in the former case. In other words, entanglement is the quantum

counterpart of gravitation, usually meant to be quantum gravitation, but essentially dif-

ferent from the standard idea of quantum gravitation denoted to be similar to the other

three interactions of the Standard model. However, those three refer to Pauli’s paradigm

corresponding to the ultimate state of their division, unlike entanglement being identified

as one among the class of nonstandard quantum gravity relates to any intermediate stage

of that division and even being equivalent to the former three by virtue of the equivalence

of inertial mass (relevant to the former case of the ultimate division) and gravitational

mass (relevant to the latter case of the intermediate process of the division at issue).

Accordingly, the real omnipresent “Big Bang” (or the medium of the “Small pico-

Bangs”) corresponds to all processes of decoherence in the universe including in the past,

i.e., due to the decrease of entanglement. If one returns to the standard picture of the

mythical Big Bang in the beginning of the universe, an initial maximal entanglement pre-

ceding the Big Bang would correspond. The mythical “Big Bang” would be the process of

the decoherence of that “Big Entanglement”, and the expansion of the universe should be

gradual decoherence of that “Big Entanglement”. Of course, that “Big Entanglement” is

not less mythical than the “Big Bang” and represents, just as the latter, an integral back

projection of the real omnipresent and omnitemporal entanglement.

4. FORCES AND PROPERTIES VERSUS INTERACTIONS AND RELATIONS

In fact, the problem about quantum gravity, as it is articulated above, refers to the

relation of “forces” and “interactions” in modern physics after Galileo Galilei and Isaac

Newton, on the one hand, and that of properties and relations (for example after Russell

who emphasized the necessity of the reformulation of the medieval predicate “logic of

properties” on their basis). Indeed the principle of the equivalence of inertial and gravita-

tional masses discussed above in detail in the framework of the present context can be

interpreted as the quantitative link between the “physics of actions” and the “physics of

interactions”.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

Though the common scientific opinion is that contemporary physics at all and quan-

tum mechanics in particular belongs to the latter, in which any physical influence is due

to some interaction, in fact the Standard model supports the opposite viewpoint, that of

physical forces. Indeed, the Standard model means weak, strong, and electromagnetic “in-

teractions”, but it interprets them essentially as forces. The distinction between (1) forces

and (2) interactions consists in referring to: (1) a single system, to which any force acts,

setting it in a motion, which can be considered to be a property of the system at issue

according to another property of it, its inertial mass expressible by the relation (or mathe-

matically, ratio) of the physical quantity of force and that of acceleration, featuring the

caused motion. Of course, this is the famous second principle of Newton, “  ”, de-

fining the concept of “inertial mass”

(2) As to the case of interactions, one means more than one system, but the systems

can be granted to be two for the simplicity of discussion. Then, the concept of relative

motion is relevant, on the one hand, and that of gravitational mass, on the other hand. The

physical influence as an interaction is a relation of the two physical systems at issue. Any

interaction generates two accelerations, which can be granted to be equal, but opposite in

direction. Thus, any interaction can be reduced to two equal forces opposite in direction,

according to Newton’s third principle. Gravitational force or interaction, though obeys

the third principle as well, represent in fact a correction to the influence of any other force

(respectively, interaction), therefore inherently being a relation and thus an interaction

So, any force, which is not gravitational, can be also considered to be a relation, that

of it to the caused acceleration according to the second principle or the concept of “inertial

mass”. The peculiarity of gravitational force consists in the fact that the acceleration of

another body acts as a force if the framework in the previous proposition is followed.

Then, gravitational force can be represented as a correction to any other force from the

same viewpoint of the first sentence. For example, that correction can be due to the Higgs

mechanism “spontaneously” violating the immanent symmetry established by Newton’s

third principle between action and reaction: mass at rest can be defined by means of their

mismatch. That mismatch of the acting force and the reaction force is a resultive force

representable as an additional mass called “mass at rest”. One can notice that such a con-

sideration means only an inertial mass, eventually corrected by another inertial mass

called mass at rest and able to represent gravitational forces being due to all the accelera-

tions of all other entities in the universe.

Thus, the Standard model remains thoroughly within the framework of the “physics

of forces” considered to be properties, after which even gravitational force, being inher-

ently relative, is nonetheless reflected as still one inertial force generating a “spontaneous”

asymmetry of action and reaction and meant by the Higgs mechanism generating “mass

at rest”. The adjective “spontaneous” is very instructive: it cannot but be “spontaneous”

since its “unspontaneous” cause is gravitational mass being inherently out of the inertial

framework originating from Pauli’s particle paradigm of energy conservation.

So, one can reinterpret the conflict between general relativity and the eventual future

theory of “quantum gravity”, on the one hand, and the Standard model corresponding to

the classical quantum mechanics and Pauli’s “particle paradigm” of energy conservation,

on the other hand, as another collision of the “physics of interactions” versus the “physics

of forces” featuring the whole course of modern physics, but now resumed on the quan-

tum stage.

Furthermore, mass at rest is equivalent to the violation of CPT-invariance. Indeed, “C” (for “charge” in “CPT”) means

“force”, and “CP” (again there) notates “energy”: thus CPT-invariance is “action” and therefore touching its counterpart

of quantum information obeying quantum information conservation. Consequently, quantum information conservation

implies CPT-invariance, but not vice versa: since quantum information conservation is a conservative generalization of

CPT-invariance including the case of its violation by gravitation anyway equivalently representable on the “wall of

Plato’s cave” by the pair of the general CPT-invariance and the corresponding mass at rest, specific for any particle and

being the necessary correction for the relevant violation of CPT-invariance.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

Then, the EPR argument

about the incompleteness of the “classical” quantum me-

chanics culminated in the theory of quantum information and the 2022 Nobel Prize can

be realized in the confrontation of those two “physics”: that of interactions versus that of

forces. This means that the mathematical formalism of quantum mechanics by the sepa-

rable complex Hilbert space implies a relational counterpart, which is the missing com-

plement of the “classical quantum” mechanics to its eventual completeness implicitly sug-

gested by its mathematical formalism.

Though the triple article itself involved only the “pure existence” as an abstract logi-

cal necessity of that relational “shady” counterpart to the “forceful” quantum mechanics

(what the “classical” one is), Bell’s inequalities (1964) gave it a constructive and experi-

mentally testable form. The experiments awarded by the Nobel Prize were just what con-

firmed that the hypothetical relational counterpart really exists by means of the demon-

stration of quantum statistical correlations exceeding any possible classical correlations,

i.e., violating the limit established by Bell’s inequalities. The sense of the Nobel Prize is

epochal since it decrees the existence of the relative counterpart of classical quantum me-

chanics as a scientific fact and thus the theory of quantum information as a legal “twin”

or at least “sibling” of the Standard model.

Then, still one conjecture is pioneered by following the “logic of the EPR argument”

once “E” in “EPR” denotes Einstein, the creator of general relativity. The newly discov-

ered territory, before being a “terra incognita”, can be anyway recognized as Einstein’s

general relativity only rewritten in a different language, that of quantum mechanics by

the crucial mediation of quantum information.

One can involve a counterfactual metaphor to Columbus’s discovery

of a new sea

route to India, sailing west to reach India from the other side because of the spherical

shape of the earth. On the contrary, one can suggest that another Columbus, in a counter-

factual universe where no America (on earth there), started to reveal a new continent, the

counterpart of our America which however does not exist there, reached really India

thinking that this is the new continent of America (however in fact, India), i.e. a fallacy

opposite or counterfactual to that of our real Columbus.

Then, the conjecture for the identification of entanglement and quantum gravity can

be likened to the fallacy for India to be discovered as America (rather than vice versa), but

in the counterfactual universe sketched above. If general relativity describes gravitation

as the relational counterpart of classical mechanics, the theory of quantum information is

the analogical relational counterpart of quantum mechanics, and finally quantum me-

chanics establishes the apparatus and its readings, both as its necessary condition, all

those three premises imply the identification of general relativity and the theory of quan-

tum mechanics and entanglement. Even more, the identification at issue implies an addi-

tional hypothesis about dark matter and dark energy as originating from entanglement:

It is often called, but being misleading, the “EPR paradox”. Its three authors did not consider it to be a paradox, as

well. It is only a contradiction common sense’s prejudice of locality. The paper of Tartaglia (1998) discusses its osten-

sible paradoxicality.

For example, following the EPR argumentation interpreted to be “counterfactual” (as in Bolotin 2019 or Forster

1986), “statistical, but in a quasi-classical sense” (Fano, Macchia, Tarozzi 2019), respectively “classically rooted”

(Lando, Bringuier 2008), or even “wrong” (Holland 2005). The eventual “solution” of EPR is easily linkable to the

generalization of probability (e.g., Pykacz 2006); The ideas of Lee (2014) or Szabó (2000) for the eventual solution of

EPR correspondingly by special relativity or by Reichenbach’s “common cause” correspond to the distinction of locality

versus nonlocality by the light limit, as it is meant in the present paper. In fact, one can relate the EPR argumentation

for quantum mechanics to be incomplete to a future and complete quantum mechanics and the Gödel incompleteness of

arithmetic to set theory (Penchev 2009) and then unify them on the ground of the “nonstandard bijection” (e.g., Penchev

2021 March 9), or the “philosophical bit of information” (e.g., Penchev 2021 August 24), or “scientific transcendental-

ism” (e.g. Penchev 2021 April 12) in the final analysis.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

One can point out that dark matter and dark energy, though predominating in the

universe as about 95% or 96% of its entire mass and energy

, are established only by grav-

itational interaction whether based on the common general relativity or on any alternative

theory of gravitation. In other words, not even one experiment demonstrating any of the

“three canonical interactions” (in fact, forces in the actual meaning refined above) recog-

nized by the Standard model as an eventual source of dark matter and dark energy. So,

no quantity in the framework of the “classical” quantum mechanics, obeying Pauli’s “par-

ticle paradigm” of energy conservation and unitarity and thus restricting all possible

quantities in quantum mechanics to Hermitian operators in quantum mechanics, is able

to generate dark matter or dark energy

So, the only possible remaining cause and source of dark matter and dark energy

consistent to both experimental considerations above can be non-Hermitian operators still

relevant to quantum mechanics, but not to Pauli’s particle and unitary paradigm of energy

conservation. Thus, the 2022 Nobel Prize pioneers the pathway to the extended (or “non-

classical”) quantum mechanics of quantities describable by non-Hermitian operators and

not obeying energy conservation in the framework of its eventual generalization conjected

to be a law of quantum information conservation to the Lie groups of action (rather than

to the Lie groups of time as the non-generalized case of energy conservation).

The complement of the Lie groups of time to the Lie groups of action (or respectively

that of energy conservation to quantum information conservation) consists in the physical

influence of coherent states of quantum superposition, i.e. Einstein's “spooky actions at a

distance” or speaking loosely and partly figuratively it consists in the physical influence

of the “state of the universe before the Big Bang” after its demystification into an omni-

present and permanent medium “Pico-Bangs” of decoherence, projectable also as a single

common Big Bang back in time (ostensibly 13-14 billions of years ago) on the cognitive

screen of Pauli’s paradigm and the seemingly inviolable energy conservation being in fact

an unscientific prejudice of religious origin.

Related to the problem of dark mass and dark energy, this means that both are due

to the coherent phase of the universe: i.e. the vast majority of the universe is yet in a co-

herent state corresponding to the experimentally observed 95-96% of dark matter and en-

ergy, and only 4-5% of the universe are in an absolutely decoherent state, to which Pauli’s

paradigm of energy conservation is really relevant. So one can estimate the scope of the

Standard model to that of the forthcoming theory of quantum information approximately

as 1:20 according to the ratio of the “light” mass and energy according to the Standard

model in relation to the “dark” ones, the investigation of which has been pioneered by the

experiments confirming entanglement and awarded by the 2022 Nobel Prize.

That crucially prevailing coherent state of the universe can be described though more

or less figuratively as the indistinguishability of time and energy or being in the state of

“Schrödinger’s cat” so that 95-96% of it are in the coherent superposition of being both

alive-and-dead simultaneously, and only 4-5% of it are in an ultimately state of either alive

or dead. That coherent state is furthermore reversible in time or one might say that the

two directions of time (conventionally definable as forwards and backwards in time) are

not yet divided or at least they are not absolutely or ultimately divided. A quantum com-

puter calculates just in that reversible state unlike any Turing machine (what all our con-

temporary computers are) processing only in a state of an absolute decoherence where

Schrödinger’s cat can only be either “alive” or “dead” therefore constituting a bit of clas-

sical information by conventionally denoting “alive” as “1” versus “dead” as “0”.

This is a very confirmed fact including in the scientific popular and mass culture, for example in “NASA science”:

https://science.nasa.gov/astrophysics/focus-areas/what-is-dark-energy (seen on 28 February 2023).

As this is discussed above, the semi-legal and too exotic confinement as an additional fourth interaction and thus

partly out of the strict framework of the Standard model might be anyway the basis of a possible theory of dark matter

or dark energy.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

5. QUANTUM MECHANICS WITH THE STANDARD MODEL VERSUS GEN-

ERAL RELATIVITY

One should distinguish the “classical” quantum mechanics obeying Pauli’s “particle

paradigm” of unitarity and energy conservation where all possible quantities are Hermit-

ian operators from quantum mechanics at all, though common sense tends naturally to

identify them. The EPR argument

in fact demonstrates only that the “classical” quantum

mechanics is incomplete to quantum mechanics as (e.g.) Niels Bohr’s viewpoint (1935;

1957) to the triple article can be interpreted. On the contrary, Einstein, Podolsky, and

Rosen rather identified the classical quantum mechanics and quantum mechanics at all

after Einstein’s insight into the eventual nonempty complement of the former to the lat-

ter

as producing the outrageous “spooky action at a distance”, more outrageous than

which only the 2022 Nobel Prize can be for the reason that it awards experiments conse-

crating those nonlocal “ghosts” in physics as a respectable scientific truth.

Even more, the conjecture nowadays that almost all the universe is “spooky” if one

identifies its “dark” part as nonlocal as above seems to be quite believable. The identifica-

tion of the “dark” with the “nonlocal” can be justified rather elementarily and elegantly

though not absolutely rigorously. Locality is “light” since it is within and only within the

light cone, i.e. within and only within the imaginary domain of Minkowski space. Respec-

tively, nonlocality should be “dark” since it is out of and only out of the light cone, i.e.

within and only within the real domain of Minkowski space. So, if locality is “light” by

virtue of the postulate of the maximal light speed in a vacuum, nonlocality is to be dark

on the same ground.

“One more thing” (in “Steve Jobs’s manner”): though “dark”, what is “dark” is not

absolutely “invisible” experimentally, but “visible” only in gravitational observations

since the word “experiments” is rather inappropriate in the case at issue. So, the associa-

tive chain “nonlocal - dark - gravitational” suggests the conjecture to be interpreted as a

series of equivalences rather than as one more or less metaphorical and thus quite loose

argument. In other words, what is nonlocal can be identified with what is gravitational.

Meaning the precious mathematical language of Minkowski space for the “nonlocal”

in the meaning of being within and only within its real domain, on the one hand, and that

of pseudo-Riemannian space for the “gravitational” in the meaning of being curved or

“bifurcated” into two Minkowski spaces, the one of which is conventionally granted to be

the contravariant one unlike its counterpart forced by virtue of the same convention to be

its covariant “shade” however under the necessary condition to overlap each other in any

nonzero intersection dissimilarly to the case of the “straight” Minkowski space where that

intersection is either zero (for some authors) or limited to the surface of the light cone (for

other authors), but also zero as the quantity of “spacetime distance” since the surface of

light cone is the set of all points in Minkowski space for that spacetime distance is zero.

So, if one means homeomorphism of Minkowski space and the qubit Hilbert space

(discussed in detail in other papers, in which its origin from the separable complex Hilbert

space is also explained: Penchev 2022 February 4) the unification of entanglement and grav-

itation seems to be almost obvious and thus trivial. Indeed, gravitation after general

Involving its “angular version” (Götte, Franke-Arnold, Barnett 2006), the link between it and the curved spacetime

of general relativity is already obvious. One can pay attention to Einstein’s version of the EPR thought experiment for

spin variables (Sauer 2007) as a possible link to general relativity

The study of Held (2005) makes clear that incompleteness of quantum mechanics in Einstein’s manner can be de-

duced without any “separation principle”, i.e., without distinguishing nonlocality and locality. The latter statement

would contradict one of the main ideas of the present paper. However, the author’s approach means something different:

the opposition of locality and nonlocality can be equivalently represented only locally, which corresponds exactly to the

approach here: in other words, one can add an additional dimension therefore curving locally spacetime just as general

relativity does in order to represent just only locally the opposition of locality and nonlocality. or excluding the “sepa-

ration principle”, in terms of the cited research.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

relativity describing it as the variable of pseudo-Riemannian space and thus as any varia-

ble nonzero overlapping of the two counterparts of covariant and contravariant Minkow-

ski spaces which also can be denoted to be the local “half” of its imaginary domain and

the nonlocal “half” of its real domain. If that is the case, gravitation is zero: on the contrary,

it appears as a result of any nonzero overlapping of them usually represented in Einstein’s

general relativity by the formalism of pseudo-Riemannian space being isomorphic to the

overlapping of the “covariant half” of Minkowski space with its “contravariant half” (an

issue of a conventional choice of which to be the local one and which to be its nonlocal

twin).

Well, if one passes from the overlapping of the two halves of Minkowski space to the

overlapping of two halves of the qubit Hilbert space by the mediation of the aforemen-

tioned homeomorphism, gravitation relevant to the former case is now equivalent to en-

tanglement in the latter case; or vice versa as well. That is and using an appropriate slogan:

“entanglement is gravitation, and gravitation is entanglement”. They are the same only

described in two languages: the one is that well-known one of general relativity, the other

one is that of quantum mechanics (but not that of only the “classical” quantum mechan-

ics), and finally, the “Rosetta stone” for their mutual translation is the theory of quantum

information.

The mapping of Minkowski space into the separable complex Hilbert space can be

also, though rather loosely, represented by Fourier transform formally substituting the

variable of “time” with that of “frequency”, respectively a continuous motion described

by the smooth differential equations of classical mechanics with a quantum leap by the

Schrödinger equation. Indeed, the latter is formally also a smooth differential equation,

but in relation to the variable of wave function in turn being the characteristic function of

a relevant probability (eventually, density) distribution thus substituting a quantum leap

by that probability distribution over all possible measurable values of the variable after

the quantum leap at issue and thus equivalent to it.

Accordingly, the mapping of the separable complex Hilbert space into Minkowski

space corresponds to reverse Fourier transform and thus to the replacement of “fre-

quency” by “time”; or this means: the description by the Schrödinger equation to be sub-

stituted by the smooth equations of classical mechanics though in its relativistic version.

If one describes the same reverse transition from “frequency” to “time”, but now meaning

“frequency” as the Fourier equivalent of a relevant probability density distribution, one

may notice that all possible values, conditionally meant to be “simultaneous” in a proba-

bility density distribution representing any quantum leap, would be run one by one con-

sistently over time after the mapping of the separable complex Hilbert space into Min-

kowski space, now visualized by reverse Fourier transform.

The case of pseudo-Riemannian space at any point (of it) corresponds to a pair of

Minkowski spaces “overlapping” each other and corresponding to the pair of the covari-

ant and contravariant Minkowski spaces being “tangential” at any certain point. Then, the

mapping by Fourier transform would correspond to two entangled separable complex

Hilbert spaces so that the gravitational interaction acting in any point of pseudo-Riemann-

ian space is unambiguously meant by the entanglement of the two corresponding Hilbert

spaces. Or vice versa by means of reverse Fourier transform: entanglement of any two

separable complex Hilbert spaces will be represented by a point of pseudo-Riemannian

space and a certain value of gravitational interaction at the point at issue.

Meaning the fundamental epistemological structure of quantum mechanics unifying

the discrete motion of any quantum system and its mapping onto the readings of the mac-

roscopic apparatus thus described by the smooth differential equations of classical me-

chanics, one may say that the pair of entanglement and gravitation (meant exactly accord-

ing to general relativity) are also unified just in the same way. So, the theory of quantum

information describing entanglement can be granted to be the relevant theory of quantum

gravitation since entanglement is equivalently represented by gravitation in Einstein’s

theory and following the inherent epistemological postulate of quantum mechanics (men-

tioned above).

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

In other words, if one measures the global effects of entanglement at any point of

space-time, the description of general relativity is absolutely exact. So, if the Copenhagen

interpretation of quantum mechanics, restricting it only to propositions about observable

effects and to the theory able to predict precisely enough those observable effects, general

relativity is really the theory of quantum gravity since it foresees the results of any meas-

urements very well. The hypothesis that entanglement underlies gravitation on the quan-

tum scale is out of the Copenhagen interpretation

since it does not imply any measura-

ble macro-effects different from those according to general relativity. `

Finally, one can consider the transition from the description according to quantum

mechanics by two entangled separable complex Hilbert spaces and that by pseudo-Rie-

mannian space (equivalent to two Minkowski spaces variably overlapping each other at

any point of pseudo-Riemannian space thus equivalent to variable entanglement at it), as

a generalization of the concept of reference frame, being inherent for the latter (discussed

in detail in another paper: Penchev 2021 June 8).

The concept of reference frame is fundamental for the definition of relativity, more

exactly, for the relativity of mechanical motion. Special relativity means the particular case

of inertial reference frames (established since Galileo’s age), however under the additional

postulate for the maximal speed of light in a vacuum thus being the same to any inertial

frame. In fact, the latter condition can be reinterpreted as the replacement of the classical,

absolutely immovable ether, the relative motion to which can be considered to be a “prop-

ertial” motion, i.e., as a property of any moving body or reference frame linked to it, by

the newly introduced “light” ether of electromagnetic field. That approach is also eluci-

dated in detail above in the present paper. The single difference to the classical absolutely

immovable “ether” consists in the fact that the privileged “ethereal” velocity is not zero,

but that of light in a vacuum, both being however equally the same to any inertial frame.

As this is very well known, general relativity can be considered as a conservative

generalization of special relativity, for which all physical laws are postulated to be the

same to or in any inertial reference frame. Then, general relativity postulates an analogical

proposition for any reference frame interpreting it to be moving with any variable accel-

eration rather than with a zero acceleration as in the case of all inertial frames. Once that

is the case, gravitation is an interaction due to any nonzero mutual acceleration or respec-

tively its change resulting in (or caused by) the change of gravitational interaction by vir-

tue of the equality of gravitational and inertial mass. Under the postulate of not exceeding

the speed of light in a vacuum, this seems to be the maximal possible generalization since

the postulate at issue implies the inherent locality of the concept of reference frame, how-

ever quite natural in classical mechanics referring always to smooth differential mani-

folds.

If Einstein’s “spooky action at a distance”, i.e., entanglement is established to be a

keystone of physical knowledge awarded by the 2022 Nobel Prize in physics, locality in-

cluding the locality of reference frame can be relevantly generalized in a way to comprise

“discrete” or “external” reference frames as well as “partly discrete” or “partly external”

reference frames, as those are introduced in the cited above paper (Penchev 2021 June 8).

The transition between them is not local since it can be granted to be “instantaneous” or

at least featured by a velocity exceeding that of light in a vacuum and thus out of the

locality of both special relativity and general relativity. The case of an infinite relative

speed of two “discrete reference frames” means properly a quantum leap, which can be

relevantly described by a single separable complex Hilbert space, i.e. by classical quantum

mechanics in the framework of Pauli’s paradigm.

However, the case of a finite relative speed, but exceeding the speed of light in a

vacuum, corresponds to partly discrete or partly external reference frames, i.e., to entan-

glement in all of its phenomena. If the case meant by classical quantum mechanics can be

Paty’s research (1995) summarizes the “nature of Einstein's objections to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum

mechanics” and that of Redei (2010): “Einstein's dissatisfaction with non-relativistic quantum mechanics and relativistic

quantum field theory,”

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

liken to inertial discrete reference frames: thus, the counterpart of the standard inertial

reference frames of special relativity, the case of partly discrete reference frames would

correspond to the quantum counterpart of the generalized reference frames moving to

each other with any variable acceleration. Respectively, the quantity of acceleration is the

counterpart of the newly introduced quantity of an arbitrary and variable entanglement

as in the case of decoherence (as well as in the reverse case of appearing of a single coher-

ent whole or in any combination of alternating phases of decoherence and of “coherence’).

The newly introduced principle of “quantum relativity”

(or a principle of relativity

more general than that of general relativity) can be formulated in a way to comprise the

case of nonlocality, i.e., any degree of entanglement or the process of decoherence. Insert-

ing the case of nonlocality, since it is the negation of locality, which in turn follows from

the postulate that the velocity of light in a vacuum cannot be exceeded, the postulate at

issue is rejected by virtue of those experiments awarded by the Nobel Prize establishing

that what Einstein called to be a “spooky action at a distance” is a real natural phenome-

non very well confirmed by experiments.

The principle of quantum relativity should state another conservative expansion of

the principle of relativity from any reference frames in the sense of general relativity, i.e.

obeying locality in virtue of the postulate of not exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum,

to nonlocal reference frames, the relation of which can be described in a way isomorphic

to entanglement. Literally, it says that all physical laws are the same in all reference

frames, now including those in states of relative quantum leaps to each other where en-

tanglement should be interpreted as a partial quantum leap.

Meaning that the laws and thus any physical description should be the same in any

reference frames in any relative local motions to each other, on the one hand, thus sub-

jected to gravitational interaction, on the other hand, those subjected to entanglement, i.e.

moving to each other nonlocally and considered to be also reference frames only due to

the principle of quantum relativity, one has to establish that gravitation is entanglement de-

scribed locally just as entanglement is gravitation described nonlocally. The principle of quan-

tum relativity is what implies their equivalence.

In other words or speaking loosely, in the manner of social constructivism to science,

the Nobel Prize for entanglement experiments pioneering quantum information science

is a necessary condition for the eventual future Nobel Prize for “quantum gravitation”

because it relies on quantum information and thus on the Nobel Prize in the final analysis

though in a wider sense properly meant by social constructivism.

However, the principle of quantum relativity being a necessary condition for the

eventual theory of quantum gravity is accompanied by a series of philosophical troubles

partly described above (for example destructing or deconstructing the Big Bang as a myth)

and resulting into a new viewpoint to the universe (e.g. corresponding to “scientific tran-

scendentalism” as it is described in other papers, e.g.: Penchev 2020 October 20; Penchev

2021 April 12), the slogan of which may be the universe within a quantum

or the uni-

verse within any quanta. That viewpoint as if challenging common sense (which, by the

by, has been the usual or favorite deal of science since Galileo Galilei and Giordano

Bruno’s age) is inconsistent to energy conservation or to Pauli’s “particle paradigm” con-

fessed by the Standard model in particular:

Papers (Minic, Tze 2004; Finkelstein, Gibbs 1993) discuss “quantum relativity”, but in a way partly similar, but

essentially different from that in the present paper, and that of Rossler, Weibel (2001): “post-quantum relativity”; others

(Pissondes 1998; Nottale 1995): “scale relativity” being similar to the “principle of cyclicity” promoted here in cited

already papers; the study of Pitowsky (1991) discusses the “relativity of quantum predictions”. “Quantum relativity”

can be also considered in a generalized sense to papers examining the compatibility of relativity and quantum mechanics

(e.g., Kong 2008; Macías, Camacho 2008; Kar, Kunkri, Choudhary 2006; Gambini, Pullin 2005; Fleming 1995; Ma-

yants 1995; Harding 1977) or quantum nonlocality and relativity (e.g. Flores 1996).

For example, after the “principle of cyclicity” (Penchev 2020 August 7).

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

Indeed, it is nonsense for the universe to be equated to a single quantum since the

energy of the universe “and” the energy of a single quantum is monstrously different once

the unit of time is postulated to be the same for both. Nonetheless, if energy conservation

is generalized as quantum information (justified in detail in other papers: Penchev 2020

October 5), a quantum and the universe can be compared as to the ”dark” and nonlocal

phase where the quantities of energy and time cannot be distinguished from each other

whether absolutely or partly, i.e. this is relevant only in the terms of the “light” and local

phase incorrectly identified to be all physics until (speaking rather figuratively) this year’s

Nobel Prize…

6. THE PUZZLE OF QUANTUM GRAVITY: PHILOSOPHICAL RATHER THAN

ONLY PHYSICAL

So, one can speak of the “puzzle of quantum gravity” as a fundamental philosophical

problem rather than as a particular one referring only to physics and to the relation of two

fundamental physical theories: quantum mechanics and general relativity

. At least a few

very important philosophical consequences from the sketched above solution about the

problem of quantum gravity by the mediation of entanglement and quantum information

are to be noticed:

Causality being fundamental for scientificity at all at least in natural science rather

than only in physics should be generalized in a way able to include “reverse causality”

rather than only probabilistic causality already legitimized by classical quantum mechan-

ics, the Standard model or Pauli’s particle paradigm of energy conservation. The reverse

causality is out of the scope of the latter, inconsistent to it, but a corollary from the eventual

solution about quantum gravity by means of entanglement and quantum information:

The prevailing part of the universe (about 95-96% according to the current experi-

mental data) should be related to its “dark” phase registrable only by gravitational phe-

nomena whether in the dominating framework of general relativity or in those of its rivals

though rather marginal. The reverse causality along with the “normal”, “straight” causal-

ity so that both can be unified into reversible causality are inherent for the “dark” phase

at issue and unlike the “light” phase featured only by the latter type of causality further-

more being fundamentally local:

Indeed, any physical cause can be only local, propagating as a physical interaction

limited to the speed of light in a vacuum once general relativity has been granted. If that

was the case, Einstein’s epithet “spooky” is quite appropriate: any nonlocal cause can be

in the area of “ghosts”, admitted only by spiritualism rather than studied by physics and

natural science. Nonetheless, the 2022 Nobel Prize legitimizes indirectly those physical

causes being only nonlocal and for example allowing for the following metaphor or phil-

osophical speculation about the “Fermi paradox”:

“Why are the aliens not here?” In fact, they are maybe here, but nonlocally.

One can figure, for example, though counterfactually nowadays, some tribe in some

isolated and remote island in any ocean where the global civilization has not reached yet.

The thinkers of the tribe wonder and dispute: “Are we alone or there exist other human

tribes on other islands among the boundless ocean?” To resolve that puzzle, they decide

to transmit signals by fires lit on the ocean shore. No any answer for many years! “Conse-

quently, we are alone”, the thinkers there conclude while radio waves at all frequencies

are propagated all over the island carrying terabytes by terabytes of information, which

might be exceptionally useful for the tribe as long as it was not completely inaccessible to

the islanders according to their level of technical development. Even one might admit that

the fires lit by the tribe are noticed by somebody, but there exists some world convention

protecting the originality of the tribe and prohibiting any contact with it before reaching

maturity, the only possible witness for which might be the fact of a self-built radio and

thus its self-inclusion in the global community.

A series of papers by Borzeszkowski and Treder (1991; 1989; 1982; 1982) anticipates the idea of Einstein’s general

relativity to be interpreted as a “nonstandard” theory of quantum gravitation.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

Well, humankind is to build that nonlocal “radio” to certify its maturity by the self-

inclusion in the community of the universe. The space abysses are obviously unsurmount-

able by any physical moving obeying local causality, but they vanish in thin air once non-

local communication has been mastered, by which the “Wikipedia of the universe” has

become accessible for us and thus the option for an almost vertical progress of humankind

appears only after reading that “Universe-pedia”.

Quantum communication, the importance of which is illustrated above by a possible

“nonlocal” solution of the “Fermi paradox”, is inherent to the universe due to the prevail-

ing of its “dark” phase, but it needs reversible causality. Nonetheless, both quantum com-

munication and reversible causality were out of the scope of physics obeying Pauli’s par-

adigm in quantum mechanics and even out of natural science at all, since it restricted itself

only to the “normal”, “straight” causality in fact valid to the “light” local phase of the

universe estimated to be not more than 4-5% of the total mass and energy of the universe.

Furthermore, quantum communication and reversible causality feature the concept

of quantum computer, or that of a quantum Turing machine, in which its tape consists of

qubits rather than of bits as in a Turing machine usually defined

. So, the investigation of

reversible causality, the conditions and qualitative laws for its transformation into the

“normal”, “straight” causality are directly related to any quantum computer and the no-

tion of its technical implementation.

The problem about reversible or nonlocal causality, particularly inherent to quantum

communication and quantum computers, is also representable locally as the interaction

of gravitation, and the representation itself (i.e., the mapping of nonlocality, featured by

superluminal velocities

, into locality with subluminal velocities) can be interpreted as a

theory of quantum gravitation grounded on entanglement and quantum information, as

this is described in detail above. All dark mass and dark energy crucially prevailing in the

universe are to be explained as the local counterpart of nonlocality, i.e. as corresponding

to the mapping of nonlocality into locality, and thus confirming the theory of quantum

gravity by elucidating it as originating from entanglement and quantum information.

Furthermore, entanglement and quantum information, though inherent to the “dark”

phase of the universe, allow for rethinking of its “light” or local phase exhaustively de-

scribed by the Standard model as to quantum mechanics. For example, the principle of

complementarity or that of wave-particle duality can be reinterpreted though still re-

stricted to the light phase studied by classical quantum mechanics. If one of the two dual

or complementary counterparts are interpreted to be relevant to time (or to well-ordering,

mathematically), the other one can be related to “reverse time” and equated to mass and

energy. Then, the quantity of physical action, or respectively the link between conserva-

tion of any quantity and the Lie group of the translation of its conjugate quantity accord-

ing to the first theorem of Emmy Noether (1918), means the product of the physical

changes in both directions of time, which can be also distinguished into local, subluminal

ones and nonlocal superluminal ones. The former is described by kinematics and the

quantities relevant to mechanical motion such as time, position, velocity, and acceleration.

The physical changes of both under the additional condition to be thoroughly repre-

sented locally are described by dynamics where all kinematic quantities are comple-

mented by their dynamic counterparts due to the featuring quantity of mass (or mass at

rest): such as action, energy, momentum, force, work, etc. Meaning the theory of quantum

gravitation as originating from entanglement and quantum information

, but now ap-

plied to the “light” phase alone, one can suggest that mass or rather mass at rest is an

integral quantity able to represent the effect of all relevant physical changes in the reverse

For example, as in the context of another paper (Penchev 2020 August 5).

For example, the papers of Berkovitz (1998) or Zbinden, Brendel, Tittel, and Gisin (2001) consider the link of non-

locality, superluminal causation, and relativity.

The term “quantum gravitation” is intentionally utilized versus the usual one, “quantum gravity” in order to distin-

guish the unique approach of the present paper among the huge class of various hypotheses about quantum gravity.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

direction of time. It cannot but be integral since it would violate the well-ordering of

“straight” time otherwise.

Speaking quite loosely, one may involve the following visualization. Decreasing the

mass of any physical entity, the interval of reverse time, relevant to that entity, decreases

accordingly; and vice versa as to increasing its mass as well. The fundamental Planck con-

stant determining the low bound of any physical actions and connected to that interpre-

tation of action as representing the physical changes of both directions of time would

mean that those two directions of time are inherently linked: they cannot be absolutely

divided from each other since the relevant physical action would be identically zero and

thus less than the Planck constant, which is impossible. Consequently, both directions of

time are necessarily joint so that their “intersection” is a finite quantity limited by the

Planck constant.

Respectively classical information can be absolutely rigorously distinguished from

quantum information as follows. The intersection of the two alternatives of a bit of classi-

cal information is zero, but that of the two dual counterparts of a dual pair of qubits of

quantum information is a finite quantity possessing physical dimension of action and lim-

ited by the Planck constant as to our universe. No physical action corresponds to the pro-

cessing of classical information, e.g. in our computers really existent. In other words, the

processing of classical information does not influence in any way on the physical pro-

cesses relevant to the physical carriers of that classical information

Reflecting philosophically, one may say that the Cartesian picture of the world is rel-

evant only to the “light” phase of the universe, but it is only an insignificant part of the

universe at all. Quantum information and physical action are linked by the Planck con-

stant so that quantum information is physical action as well as vice versa as to the prevail-

ing “dark” or nonlocal phase of the universe. Accordingly, “mind” and “body” cannot be

absolutely divided from each other, as the Cartesian picture of the world needs, as to the

latter.

One can reflect the inherent “dark” link of “mind” and “body”, though the “light”

abyss is still valid, but it is now restricted by the prevailing “entanglement of mind and

body”. According to the Cartesian paradigm about the organization of cognition in Mo-

dernity, “mind” and “body” regardless of being gapped out of human minds, constitute

a “black box” in any human brain, the work of which obeys the “postulate of free will”,

so that the “input of mind” is able to manage the “output of body” within the “black box”

at issue, somehow available in any human brain. The “mechanism” hidden within that

“mind - body black box” is still inaccessible to science and philosophy. Furthermore, that

black box obeying free will is a necessary condition for the transformation of “mind” into

“body”: so that they are fundamentally gapped in all nature out of human brains (to which

eventually can be added the brains of certain higher animals more less approaching the

fact or postulate of the black box of human brain). In particular, the creation “ex nihilo”

cannot be observed anywhere in nature universally obeying the conservation of matter,

respectively energy.

So, the universal Cartesian paradigm endows humankind with a unique and monop-

olistic position all over the world. Only human beings are gifted by free will featuring

them from all others in nature. They can change nature by virtue of free will, i.e. in any

way chosen by their free will as long as those changes obey all natural laws, which hu-

mankind has gradually mastered. This conditions the human domination all over the

world.

The concept of God, whether a “postulate of belief” or a conjecture yet not confirmed

enough, is an expression of that human domination eventually shared with or obeying

God. So, the secret of the “black box” somehow available within and only within any hu-

man brain (and that of a few higher animals, eventually, but inconsiderably) endows with

the authority to rule the physical world at will in due observance of the “constitution of

Many papers consider arithmetic operations on a quantum computer (e.g. Zhang 2020; Vedral, Takahashi 2009; Van

Meter, Nemoto, Munro, Itoh 2008; Barenco, Ekert 1996).

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

all natural laws” established in advance not by humankind. However, that fundamental

constitution of Modernity can be now related only to the “light” and local part of the

physical world, and the secret of human mind, in particular allowing for humankind to

govern the world like a collective “constitutional monarch” in fact, is to refer to the pre-

vailing dark and nonlocal side of the physical world, originating from there.

The model of neural network relevant to any human brain can be interpreted as a

finite approximation to the duality of the separable complex Hilbert space so that neural

network is able to model it, though more or less approximately in practice, to be entangled

with its physical carrier or “body” (according to the Cartesian “slang”) so transforming

non-material thoughts of human mind into physical actions of the material “body”. Fur-

thermore, quantum entanglement is able, though it is yet unknown how, to underlie di-

rectly the work of the human brain, rather than only to be approximately modeled by

means of neural networks, i.e., only indirectly to manage human minds.

Whether directly or indirectly the internal “mechanism” of the “mind-body black

box” cannot but obey quantum entanglement because this is the only way, allowed by

natural laws, for the transformation of “pure information” into physical action featured

by any nonzero quantity of action greater than the Planck constant.

So, entanglement, established by the Nobel Prize to be a scientific phenomenon rec-

ognized by human society, is a key for deciphering the mechanism of the “brain black

box” rather than only to quantum gravitation as this is sketched in detail above. So, the

secret of the “mind-body black box” relies on the dark phase of the universe in the final

analysis and thus to the generalized reversible causality inherent for entanglement though

eventually only approximately modeled by neural networks in the real human brains.

There exists one more fundamental and philosophical consequence from establishing

entanglement and quantum information as absolutely recognized and legitimate areas of

human cognition, concerning the concepts of hierarchy, well-ordering, or the distinction

between classical information measured by bits and quantum information measured by

qubits.

Indeed, the concept of hierarchy can be tracked even into so important practical areas

such as that of human society and the way for it to exist and function reliably by means

of any institutions or social order. In fact, the hierarchy inherent for human society is a

necessary condition for social peace destroyed by any revolution, during which an essen-

tial change of social hierarchy and order can occur. Thomas Kuhn’s very famous book

(1962) interpreted in the present context equates the social revolutions to the newly intro-

duced “scientific revolutions”; and the periods between those, featured by an established

scientific hierarchy and order, as “normal science” obeying its own legal codex, called

“paradigm”, able to arrange almost all scientific disputes.

Physics and quantum mechanics are also embodied in relevant scientific institutions

obeying the general rules of social institutions and order. If one interprets Pauli’s para-

digm in terms properly social, it proclaims the conservation of social hierarchy and order

since energy conservation is a necessary condition for the natural hierarchy of physical

influence grounded on the magnitude of energy under the requirement for the quantity

of time to be universal.

The establishment of the dark phase of the universe as prevailing, in which the “anti-

hierarchical” and “revolutionary” entanglement and quantum information dominate,

shakes and waves back the philosophical concept of hierarchy and order at all and then

and in particular those of social hierarchy and order. The eventual relevant social change

would mean a state of Mao’s or Sartre’s “permanent revolution” including “permanent

cultural revolution” rather than the replacement of an “old” or “politically reactionary”

social hierarchy and order by another, “new” or “politically progressive” ones by the me-

diation of a longer or shorter historical period of social and political revolutions, during

which the replacement at issue can occur or be accomplished intentionally.

Though the appeal for permanent revolution might seem to be a “war-cry for perma-

nent chaos and destruction” (as an illustration of what the age of Mao’s “cultural revo-

lution” in China can serve), the society of permanent revolution in which the “dark phase

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

of missing social hierarchy and order” prevails crucially is not more an oxymoron or non-

sense: for example, being embodied in the social domination of the World Wide Web as

the technically possible implementation of the ”dark social phase”, in which no hierarchy

and the corresponding social order is “fluid”. Nonetheless, the light phase of an incompa-

rably more sustainable social order and hierarchy can appear permanently, again and

again, from the dark phase of “www” and following the pattern of nature, and the way

for the well-known and very sustainable light and local universe to be generated from the

prevailing crucially dark phase, that of the entangled universe of quantum information.

The aforementioned historical parallel and the social impact of the heliocentric sys-

tem can be now justified in detail. If the social projections of Nicolaus Copernicus, Galileo

Galilei, and Giordano Bruno’s worldview anticipated forthcoming social revolutions (as

those in the Commonwealth of England, the Netherlands or the French republic initially

and then all over the world), the Nobel Prize (along with the observations of dark matter,

dark energy, etc.) prophecies a new epoch of the www domination as the ultimate source

of any legitimacy relevant to the usual “light” social order and hierarchy.

One can compare the transition to that new legitimacy of the political power with the

previous analogical transition in the age of those revolutions when the legitimacy of the

monarch originating from God was replaced by that from people by the mediation of rep-

resentative democracy. The World Wide Web allows for the “people” (as the new “sover-

eign” replaced the “monarch”) to govern the state both directly and permanently. How-

ever, this is much more than a transition from “representative democracy” to “direct de-

mocracy” as far as the latter is to be assigned to the “light” phase just as the former.

The World Wide Web as the real sovereign of the political power, furthermore inher-

ently global, is able to exercise its power actually and permanently even “in real time”

rather than only symbolically, e.g., as the monarch of Great Britain: who “reigns but does

not rule”. The dramatic political conflict about “who rules” between the www network

and the political “class” constituted by virtue of representative democracy seems to be-

come unavoidable in the future just as that between the monarch versus “people”, repre-

sented by the political class of representative democracy, in the past.

So, the Nobel Prize pioneers not only the pathway to the theory of quantum infor-

mation, but furthermore and maybe more important, that to the direct political domina-

tion of the World Wide Web in the future: just as the heliocentric system had pioneered

the pathway to representative democracy rather than only to a new astronomy. That rev-

olutionary social potential of the heliocentric system was the reason for Giordano Bruno’s

pyre built for him by the Inquisition of the Catholic Church.

The “fluid” or “dark” phase of the World Wide Web featured by missing any hierar-

chy and being a necessary condition for any “light” and “solid” hierarchy, as if “crystal-

lizing from the liquid network”, tends certainly to dominate the existing hierarchies and

it may be traced back to the generalization of energy conservation into quantum infor-

mation conservation relevant also to any degree of entanglement or coherent state. Only

the “light” phase admits for any two material or physical entities to be compared accord-

ing to their amounts of energy so that the energy of the one to be less, equal, or greater

than that of another and thus the natural hierarchy of all physical entities in the universe

to be able to exist.

On the contrary, the quantity of quantum information or its physical counterpart of

action, generalizing energy conservation and thus any hierarchy relied on it by its com-

plementary hierarchy furthermore “entangled” with the former so both constitute an in-

separable or coherent state, allows for entities on both extremes of the energetic scale, for

example the universe and a quantum if one cancels the unified time unit shared by both,

to be comparable in their dark phase exchanging quantum information.

If one translates the language of entanglement and quantum information inherent for

the “dark” phase of the universe into the usual one of its “light” phase and rigorous hier-

archies originating from energy conservation and ordering, a worldview recollecting that

of Nicholas of Cusa appears. All many, many quanta on the one extreme and the defini-

tively single one of our universe as a whole on the other extreme are identified to be the

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

same in a shared cyclicity, in the transition of which (that is where both extremes of the

energetic scale are “glued” just for the cyclicity) what is “many” becomes “one”, a what

is “tiny” as a quantum becomes “huge” as the universe itself. Energy conservation can be

kept since the energy of the colossal number of all quanta in the universe can be equated

to that of the universe after sharing the same time unit.

However, one refers to the “dark” phase itself in which time is reversible and thus

comparable with mass and energy under condition of quantum information conservation,

the distinction of the universe and a single quantum does not make sense any more, since

the dark “phase” is global, and the distinction at issue is relevant only to its light and local

phase. A single quantum and the universe as a whole are able to exchange quantum in-

formation nonlocally though the exchange of energy being inherently local is nonsense

due to the fact for both to be at the two opposite extremes of the energetic scale.

7. ENTANGLEMENT AS THE KEY FOR QUANTUM GRAVITY (EVEN FROM A

PHILOSOPHICAL VIEWPOINT)

The sketched above rather ontological reflection can be continued to a level belong-

ing to philosophy of physics or quantum mechanics than to “first” philosophy or theol-

ogy, for example, such as Nicholas of Cusa’s worldview mentioned above. In other words,

gravitation described by general relativity is only local (by virtue of the postulate of not

exceeding the speed of light in a vacuum), entanglement is only global (for which Einstein

attached the pejorative epithet “spooky” to it), and quantum gravitation means the map-

ping between the local gravitation of general relativity and the definitively global entan-

glement according to the theory of quantum information. So, if the Nobel Prize were not

a fact, the one “half” of the mapping which quantum gravitation needs obligatorily, that

of entanglement would remain still “spooky” and out of physics, “respecting itself” as in

Einstein’s age at least in his own eyes.

However (and fortunately), the Nobel prize is a fact at last, and the pathway to quan-

tum gravitation grounded on entanglement is finally pioneered. Meaning just the view-

point of philosophy of physics and quantum mechanics, the frontier at issue consists in

the relation of the local to the global (or respectively, vice versa) postulated to be an iden-

tity by the Standard model or by those gauge theories consistent to it.

In particular, this explains immediately why quantum gravity is fundamentally in-

accessible to the Standard model: because it postulates for the relation to be an identity

and thus any quantity relevant to the relation of the local and global to be zero. On the

contrary, quantum gravitation implies a variable and thus nonidentical relation of the lo-

cal and global, so the mathematical structure of quantum gravity is to describe just that

relation in a quantitative way rather than only qualitatively as here. However, that only

qualitative consideration is absolutely sufficient for the objective of philosophy of physics

and quantum mechanics intended to be the proper subject of the present section.

Entanglement and resultatively quantum gravitation are “glocal”: thus, out of the

local general relativity, but also out of the gauge symmetric Standard model obeying

Pauli’s paradigm and energy conservation in quantum mechanics. In other words, general

relativity is only local just as classical mechanics though the latter did not postulate that

the velocity of light in a vacuum is the maximally possible one, but by virtue of the con-

sideration only of smooth manifolds in its framework.

The Standard model can be called also local though in a generalized sense in which

the local and global are granted to be the same by the identification of the local separable

complex Hilbert space and the global one, for example, by means of gauge symmetry.

However, quantum gravity is inconsistent with locality whether in its narrow sense con-

fessed by general relativity or its wide sense inherent for the Standard model. It needs

glocality, with which only entanglement or quantum information can supply.

The same consideration about the locality of general relativity, the generalized local-

ity of the Standard model, and the eventual immanent glocality of quantum gravitation

can be translated into the language of subluminal and superluminal velocities. Obviously,

the locality of general relativity means only subluminal velocities, the generalized locality

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

of the Standard model is able to discuss only an abstract infinite superluminal speed ra-

ther than any finite superluminal velocity, but the glocality of quantum gravitation is to

consider just those finite superluminal velocities as the real source of gravitation thus in-

herently inaccessible to the Standard model. Or said by a more or less philosophical slo-

gan: quantum gravity is a theory of glocality!

Then, one can notice that the language of superluminal and subliminal velocities as

fit to describe the relation of locality and globality as well as glocality as a transition be-

tween them is borrowed only from the Einstein theories of special and general relativity,

but this is not the proper language of quantum mechanics

The problem is: let a smooth variable of velocity traversing all values from zero to

infinity be granted. Furthermore, it will necessarily pass through the special point of the

speed of light in a vacuum. Of course, the locality of special and general relativity postu-

lates that only the subliminal values of it can make any physical sense, which Einstein

expressed by the pictorial pejorative epithet “spooky” attached to all values which are not

subliminal. Nonetheless, the Nobel Prize neglects Einstein’s warning and legitimizes the

“ghosts’ nonlocality” in physics. So, that variable of speed (running also over all possible

superluminal speeds) is already quite reasonable.

Then, the problem should be paraphrased in relation to quantum mechanics: which

is the counterpart of the above smooth “speed variable” in the proper language of quan-

tum mechanics, being inherently discrete? As to all superluminal velocities, the answer is

known: a probability density distribution of all possible localizations all over the space (or

the spacetime) is the relevant set so that the corresponding probability density distribu-

tion is more and more uncertain and its maximum less and less outlined as the superlu-

minal velocity is greater and greater. A decreasing degree of decoherence (respectively an

increasing degree of coherence) can be unambiguously mapped on the set of all continu-

ously increasing superluminal speeds (as the definitive area of that mapping).

The difficult problem concerns the continuation to all subliminal values since the

same Dirac δ-function corresponds to all of them. Anyway, one might introduce unam-

biguous relevant infinitesimal distinctions in the Dirac δ-function initially alleged to be

the same and then, the relevant infinitesimal variable originating from the function at is-

sue to be recognized as the area of all superluminal values. One can conjecture a rectangle

with infinitesimally small “base” and and a reciprocally infinitesimally great “height”.

Then, the infinitesimal small “base” of the Dirac δ-function can be unambiguously

mapped into the finite subliminal velocity under the condition that the mapping (just as

the Dirac δ-function itself as its source) is a generalized function in the following rigor-

ous meaning: it is a transfinite bijection since the one set of it consists of finite values but

the other one of it consists of infinitesimal small values.

Alternatively, the same bijection can be described in terms of Robinson’s nonstand-

ard analysis where the same set of infinitesimally small set is described in two comple-

mentary or dual ways: as Cauchy’s only potentially infinitesimally small variable obeying

the axiom of Archimedes versus the same, but now by Leibniz’s actually infinitesimally

small differentials not obeying that axiom once they have been interpreted after Robinson

(1966).

Meaning that nonstandard bijection of all subluminal velocities into the “base” of the

Dirac δ-function, by which it is generalized to a class so that the class of equivalence of the

former class is the usual (or non-generalized) definition of the Dirac δ-function, one can

reinterpret the quantity of velocity in terms of the dual language of positions relevant to

quantum complementarity. Then, all subliminal velocities can be realized as different in-

finitesimally small neighborhoods about any position so that its geometric area though

being infinitesimal small is mapped by some relevant bijection into all subluminal values

The idea is discussed for the first time in another paper (Penchev 2013).

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

so that the quantity of velocity is defined to be the infinitesimal fussiness of any position

proportionally corresponding

Utilizing the above more or less conventional reinterpretation of velocity in classical

mechanics as the infinitesimal “fussiness” of any position, one can consistently continue

to the quantum counterpart of the speed variable spanning all values from zero to infinity

also in relation to all subliminal values so that the Dirac δ-function is realized otherwise:

as a normal, non-generalized function for which the relevant probability density distribu-

tion is spanned over an infinitesimally small segment of admissible values, and velocity

is the finite and bijective counterpart of the infinitesimally small length of the segment at

issue.

A visualization of that bijection might be the physical measurement of an infinitesi-

mally small variable by any value belonging to that infinitesimally small variable as a

standard reference unit for that measurement. Indeed, the results of that measurement

would be finite and thus constitute a finite variable by a bijection. One can immediately

notice that velocity thus defined is the derivative of the infinitesimally small variable of

the “base” of the Dirac function.

Then, the fundamental constant of the speed of light in а vacuum, expressing the

bound of locality to nonlocality physically, is reinterpreted as the corresponding mathe-

matical limit dividing any infinitesimally small neighborhood about any point from any

finite neighborhood about the same point, and the physical quantity of velocity (whether

subliminal or superluminal) corresponds unambiguously to the first derivative of the var-

iable geometric area of the neighborhood at issue. However, the so-defined velocity

would be infinitesimally great in the case of superluminal velocities, due to which is re-

placed by its finite counterpart: for example, by the physical measurement with relevant

standard reference unit rather than with an infinitesimally small reference unit borrowed

from the subliminal area.

So, two seemingly inconsistent descriptions of the same variable of speed appear: the

one from the viewpoint from relativity, the other from that of quantum information and

the suggested theory of quantum gravitation underlain by entanglement. According to

the former, locality and the corresponding limit of the speed of light in a vacuum are only

postulated so that nonlocality is physically prohibited. On the contrary, the “spooky” non-

locality is allowed for the latter, but the areas of subluminal and superluminal velocities

are complementary to each other due to the following: either (1) their reference units are

infinitesimally different, or (2) the values of both corresponding speeds are infinitesimally

different if the unit is postulated to be the same. In other words, locality or the restriction

of the speed of light in a vacuum is only a physical representation of the mathematical,

philosophical or even possibly theological bound between finiteness (respectively,

“finitude”) and infinity. So, the solutions of general relativity and the alleged quantum

information theory of gravitation seems to be ostensibly quite different, at least at first

glance:

Speaking loosely, general relativity postulates for all claiming to be physical to be

local and finite, and accordingly, it “anathematizes” and “curses” nonlocality or infinity

to be “spooky” and out of science and physics

. Quantum gravitation by entanglement

accepts both nonlocality and infinity, but it establishes that the reference units of locality

and nonlocality should be infinitesimally different if one would like both descriptions to

be empirically or experimentally accessible, i.e finite, and logical consistency conserved.

Thus, complementarity inherent for the entire quantum domain is reinterpreted to be iso-

morphic to the mathematical duality of finiteness and infinity, for example, by means of

the distinction of finite sets versus infinite sets in set theory. However, that viewpoint is

One can interpret the infinitesimal unification of general relativity and quantum mechanics by adding an additional

“fifth” space-time dimension (e.g., as in: Wesson 2011) also interpretable as a second time dimension (Fidelman 2008).

For example, the paper of Blaylock (2010) interprets the relation of the “EPR paradox” to Bell’s inequalities as the

“question of locality”. On the contrary, other articles (Bricmont 1996 or Cook 2009) link nonlocality and relativity.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

absolutely relevant only to classical quantum mechanics, Puali’s paradigm, and the Stand-

ard model

Quantum information takes two crucial and very important steps beyond them. An-

yway, it allows for both infinitesimally different reference units or respectively both con-

jugate classes of quantities measurable by each of them to be considered simultaneously

in a way for quantum mechanics not to be “incomplete” in Einstein’s sense. Here is how.

The transition over the “abyss of complementarity” is probabilistic so that a certain prob-

ability (density or not) distribution and correspondingly its characteristic function (called

“wave function” in classical quantum mechanics) features any passing over that precipice.

Moreover, that passing over the chasm of duality is mathematically isomorphic to a cer-

tain state on the other “shore”, that of nonlocality or infinity in a way ostensibly “magical”

or “tricky” for common sense but quite relevant to the “insanity” of quantum mechanics:

For example, Alice falling down the rabbit hole turns out immediately in Wonder-

land so that her adventures in Wonderland and her falling down the rabbit-hole are the

same rather than following one after the other as common sense (unlike quantum me-

chanics and information) needs. So, Einstein’s incompleteness is avoided “magically”:

though classical mechanics (as if) does not describe “Alice’s falling down the rabbit-hole”,

but only “her deeds in Wonderland”, the description is not incomplete, though amaz-

ingly, since the former and the latter are the same.

Nonetheless, quantum gravitation and its theory by entanglement and quantum in-

formation is able to distinguish them from each other so that and continuing the meta-

phor, quantum gravity would correspond to “Alice’s following down” and classical quan-

tum mechanics to “what happens in Wonderland”. Then, Einstein’s general relativity,

though describing only the former and only locally, is anyway able to describe “Alice’s

travel through Wonderland” though in a different language. Abandoning the metaphor,

one can stare at the proper way for general relativity to describe somehow and implicitly

Wonderland.

It adds, anyway, a new dimension by distinguishing or quantitatively mismatching

covariant description (interpretable also as a description only of reference units) from con-

travariant description (inherent for classical mechanics and interpretable to mean only the

quantities measured by those reference units now granted to be the same). Speaking in-

herently qualitatively as here, on may say that the curvature of space-time as well as its

counterpart of energy-momentum both being tensors in any point of pseudo-Riemannian

space, furthermore able to describe absolutely gravitation according to the Einstein field

equation, originate from that mismatching between two descriptions, where the one is

covariant and the other is contravariant.

Now and following the infinitesimal distinction of the areas of subluminal and su-

perluminal velocities as above, one can ascribe either of both areas to contravariant or

covariant descriptions correspondingly, but conventionally in fact, since any of both de-

scriptions can be assigned to the domain of subluminal velocity or not worse, to that of

superluminal speed. Regardless of that newly interpreted mathematical structure there-

fore remaining isomorphically the same, it can be still reckoned to be the source of gravi-

tation just as in the former case of the interpretation inherent for general relativity.

In other words, the curvature of pseudo-Riemannian space as the source of gravita-

tion according to the mathematical formalism of general relativity is now reinterpreted as

originating from adding a new dimension regardless of its interpretation: whether by mis-

matching the covariant description to its covariant counterpart just following general rel-

ativity literally or by the isomorphic mismatch of two infinitely different domains, the

subluminal and superluminal ones as above.

The former case refers immediately to entanglement and quantum information and

thus, to the Nobel Prize since the domains of subliminal and superluminal velocities (for

example representable as the real and imaginary domains of Minkowski space ant then as

the two dual qubit spaces as well as the two dual separable complex Hilbert spaces of

classical quantum mechanics), however now linked to each other by any nonzero degree

of entanglement.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

Meaning the latter interpretation though being nonstandard to or for Einstein’s gen-

eral relativity, one can speak of gravity in an abstract meaning referring directly to the

foundations of mathematics

, e.g. classically, i.e by the triple of propositional logic, arith-

metic, and set theory

and thus to Gödel’s classical completeness (1930) and incomplete-

ness (1931) papers. Then, gravitation would be a result of the Gödel dichotomy of the

relation of arithmetic to set theory: being either inconsistent or incomplete to each other

as two first order logics to classical propositional logic. The reason is the following. Grav-

itation in the latter interpretation means an infinitesimal relation being isomorphic to that

of finiteness to infinity (or vice versa) as well as that of arithmetic to set theory after Gö-

del’s consideration.

In other words, gravitation interpreted set-theoretically realizes the Gödel insoluble

statement otherwise transforming it from a proper logical statement similar to that of the

paradox of the Liar into a rather physical statement so that it and the paradox of the arrow

are alike. Of course, though the two paradoxes are somewhat alike in their logical struc-

ture, the latter means a mechanical motion, the cause of which can be (or at least can be

granted to be) gravitation. That is: the arrow is “both here and not here” since a force or

interaction, interpretable as gravitation after the principle of the equivalence of inertial

and gravitational masses, moves it.

So the Gödel tension between arithmetic and set theory, between finite and infinity,

in the final analysis even as that between mathematics and physics, can be also reinter-

preted as a physical force or interaction and then identified with gravitation in a way ab-

solutely consistent with the conception of “scientific transcendentalism” discussed in de-

tail in other papers (e.g. Penchev 2021 April 12; Penchev 2020 October 20).

8. INSTEAD OF CONCLUSION: THE 2022 NOBEL PRIZE AS A PREMONITION OF

THE FORTHCOMING NOBEL PRIZE FOR QUANTUM GRAVITY

The main conclusion of the paper can be: the 2022 Nobel Prize for entanglement and

quantum information pioneers the pathway for the future Nobel Prize for quantum grav-

itation since any theory of quantum gravitation is impossible within the framework of

classical quantum mechanics, the Standard model (where it is anyway available indirectly

and implicitly by the Higgs mechanism, spontaneous breaking of symmetry resulting into

any nonzero mass at rest), or Pauli’s “particle paradigm” of energy conservation and uni-

tarity since the quantum information theory of quantum gravity involves non-unitarity

and nonlocality

, respectively generalized physical quantities referring to non-Hermitian

One can reveal that idea as implicit in the investigation of Honig (1976).

That approach can be considered as a continuation of a series of papers, the subject of which is the relation of quantum

mechanics (or quantum information) to logic, or more generally, to mathematics and its foundations (e.g. Parsons 2013;

Palmer 2011; Baltag, Smets 2011; 2006; Liberati, Maccione 2011; Marchetti, Rubele 2007; Ozawa 2007; Zizzi 2007;

Lindenstrauss 2006; Planat, Rosu 2004; Barnum 2003; Santos 2003; Titani, Kozawa 2003; Krause, Sant’Anna, Volkov

1999; Schlesinger 1999; Tappenden 1995; Stairs 1985; Takeuti 1981; Nickerson 1975). The proper relation of the math-

ematical formalism of quantum mechanics and logic can be interpreted following papers (Plotkin 2013; 2006; Palmquist

2012; 2007; Schmidt 2010; Schwarz, Shapiro 2006; Schmeikal 1998; Wynn, Bloom 1992; Otte 1990; Sarnak 1983;

Misner, Wheeler 1957), discussing the link of geometry and physics and logic, or even arithmetic, since the former

can be interpreted as a generalization of Euclidean geometry to arbitrarily many or infinite dimensions, furthermore

over the field of complex numbers rather than that of real numbers. The study of Krause, Sant’Anna, Volkov (1999) can

be specially featured since it translates the Gödel dichotomy about the relation of arithmetic to set theory into the quan-

tum language of distinguishability (for “fermions”) versus indistinguishability (for “bosons”).

The paper of Chose (1997) discusses the same idea about the nonlocality and non-unitarity if one unifies quantum

mechanics and general relativity.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

operators, and the violation of energy conservation after the more general law of quantum

information conservation.

So, the recognition of entanglement and quantum information as an absolutely relia-

ble scientific fact by the Nobel prize is a necessary condition for the theory of quantum

gravitation by entanglement since it is inconsistent with the too narrow restrictions of

classical quantum mechanics. Then, its link to Einstein’s general relativity is inherent by

the bijective transformation of pseudo-Riemannian space into two entangled qubit Hilbert

spaces following the approach for the homeomorphic identification of Minkowski space

and the separable complex Hilbert space. As a result, the gravitation described by the for-

malism of general relativity by pseudo-Riemannian space can be equated as isomorphic

to the entanglement of qubit Hilbert spaces. Then and particularly, “dark matter” and

“dark energy” confirmed experimentally as prevailing in the universe can be linked to the

equivalence of Einstein’s gravitation by general relativity (and thus attachable to the light

and local phase) and the theory of gravity by entanglement being inherent for the dark,

nonlocal phase.

A few crucial philosophical sequences follow the break of Pauli’s paradigm:

(1) the establishment of the “dark” phase of the universe (corresponding to the ex-

perimentally corroborated dark matter and dark energy as prevailing in the universe) as

opposed to its “light” phase, only to which the Cartesian dichotomy of “body” and

“mind” is valid (respectively, that of “object” and “subject” in classical German philoso-

phy);

(2) quantum information conservation as relevant to the dark phase, furthermore

generalizing energy conservation as suitable only to its light phase, productively allowing

for physical entities to appear “ex nihilo”, i.e., from the dark phase, in which energy and

time are yet inseparable from each other, therefore substituting the mythical one-time Big

Bang with an omnipresent medium of decoherence, by which the dark phase is trans-

ferred into the light one, only integrally being equivalent to the mythical Big Bang;

(3) reversible causality as inherent to the dark phase, including reverse causality as

inseparable from common sense’s “straight” causality, in fact relevant only to the light

phase;

(4) the interpretation of gravitation only mathematically: as an interpretation, origi-

nating from physics, of the incompleteness of finiteness to infinity, for example, following

the Gödel dichotomy (“either contradiction or incompleteness”) about the relation of

arithmetic to set theory;

(5) the restriction of the concept of hierarchy only to the light phase of the universe

permanently appearing from the crucially prevailing dark counterpart comparable with

a “fluid medium” in which many various different hierarchies are simultaneously availa-

ble, but only latently;

(6) the commensurability of both physical extremes of a quantum and the universe

as a whole in the dark phase obeying quantum information conservation and akin to Nich-

olas of Cusa’s philosophical and theological worldview.

References

1. Abramowicz, M. A., S. Bajtlik, W. Kluźniak (2007) “Twin paradox on the photon sphere,” Physical Review A 75 (4): 044101(2).

2. Ade, P. A. R. et al. (Planck Collaboration) (2016) “Planck 2015 results. XIII. Cosmological parameters,”

3. Astronomy and Astrophysics 594 A13: 1-63.

4. Adler, S. L. (2012) “Quantum Theory as an Emergent Phenomenon: Foundations and Phenomenology,” Journal of Physics

Conference Series 361 (1): 012002(8).

5. Aerts, D. (1996) “Framework for possible unification of quantum and relativity theories,” International Journal of Theoretical

Physics 35 (11): 2399-2416.

6. Ahmed, N., K. Bamba, F. Salama (2020) “The Possibility of a Stable Flat Dark Energy-Dominated Swiss-Cheese Brane-world

universe,” International Journal of Geometric Methods in Modern Physics 17 (5): 2050075(15).

7. Allori, V., S. Goldstein, R. Tumulka, N. Zanghi (2014) “Predictions and Primitive Ontology in Quantum Foundations: A Study

of Examples,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 65 (2): 323-352.

8. Amelino-Camelia, G. (2002) “Quantum-Gravity Phenomenology: Status and Prospects,” Modern Physics Letters A 17 (15-17):

899-922.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

9. Amelino-Camelia, G. (2003) “Quantum-gravity phenomenology,” Physics World 16 (11): 43-47.

10. Amelino-Camelia, G., L. Smolin, A. Starodubtsev (2004) “Quantum symmetry, the cosmological constant and Planck-scale phe-

nomenology,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 21 (13): 3095-3110.

11. Amelino-Camelia, G. (2013) “Quantum-Spacetime Phenomenology,” Living Reviews in Relativity 16 (1): 5(135).

12. Allori, V. (2019) “Quantum mechanics, time and ontology,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in

History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 66 (1):145-154.

13. Aspect, A., R. Grangier, G. Roger (1981) “Experimental tests of realistic local theories via Bell’s theorem,” Physical Review

Letters 47 (7): 460-463.

14. Aspect, A., R. Grangier, G. Roger (1982) “Experimental Realization of Einstein- Podolsky-Rosen-Bohm Gedanken Experiment:

A New Violation of Bell’s Inequalities,” Physical Review Letters 49 (2): 91-94.

15. Auffèves, A., P. Grangier (2016) “Contexts, Systems and Modalities: A New Ontology for Quantum Mechanics,” Foundations

of Physics 46 (2): 121-137.

16. Ay, N., W. Tuschmann (2003) “Duality versus dual flatness in quantum information geometry,” Journal of Mathematical Phys-

ics 44 (4): 1512(7).

17. Ashtekar. A., T. A. Schilling (1999) “Geometrical Formulation of Quantum Mechanics,” in (A. Harvey, ed.) On Einstein’s Path:

Essays in Honor of Engelbert Schucking. New York: Springer, pp. 23-65.

18. Avron, J. E., O. Kenneth (2009) “Entanglement and the geometry of two qubits,” Annals of Physics 324 (2): 470-496.

19. Baianu, I. C., R. Brown, J. F. Glazebrook (2007) “A Non-Abelian, Categorical Ontology of Spacetimes and Quantum Gravity,”

Axiomathes 17 (3-4): 353-408.

20. Bain, J. (2013) “CPT Invariance, the Spin-Statistics Connection, and the Ontology of Relativistic Quantum Field Theories,

Erkenntnis 78 (4) 797-821.

21. Baltag, A., S. Smets (2006) “LQP: the dynamic logic of quantum information,” Mathematical Structures in Computer Science 16

(3): 491-525.

22. Baltag, A., S. Smets (2011) “Correlated Information: A Logic for Multi-Partite Quantum Systems,” Electronic Notes in Theoret-

ical Computer Science 270 (2): 3-14.

23. Banchi, L,, P. Giorda, P. Zanardi (2014) “Quantum information-geometry of dissipative quantum phase transitions,” Physical

Review E 89 (2): 022102(10).

24. Barnum, H. (2003) “Quantum information processing, operational quantum logic, convexity, and the foundations of physics,”

Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 34 (3): 343-379.

25. Barrow, J, D., J. Levin (2001) “Twin paradox in compact spaces,” Physical Review A 63 (4): 044104(4).

26. Basini, G., S. Capozziello (2005) “Quantum mechanics, relativity and time,” General Relativity and Gravitation 37 (1): 115-165.

27. Bartels, A, (1999) “Objects or Events? Towards an Ontology for Quantum Field Theory,” Philosophy of Science 66 (3): S170-

S184.

28. Bell, J. (1964) On the Einstein ‒ Podolsky ‒ Rosen paradox,” Physics (New York) 1 (3): 195-200.

29. Belousek, D. W. (2003) “Non-separability, Non-supervenience, and Quantum Ontology,” Philosophy of Science 70 (4): 791-811.

30. Ben-Ya’acov, U. (2016) “The ‘twin paradox’ in relativistic rigid motion,” European Journal of Physics 37 (5): 055601(13).

31. Berghofer, P., P. Goyal, H. A. Wiltsche (2021) “Husserl, the mathematization of nature, and the informational reconstruction of

quantum theory,” Continental Philosophy Review 54 (4) 413-436.

32. Berkovitz, J. (1998) “Aspects of Quantum Non-Locality II: Superluminal Causation and Relativity,” Studies in History and Phi-

losophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 29 (4): 509-545.

33. Bertram, W. (2008) “Is There a Jordan Geometry Underlying Quantum Physics?” International Journal of Theoretical Physics

47 (10): 2754-2782.

34. Bigaj, T. (2018) “Are field quanta real objects? Some remarks on the ontology of quantum field theory,” Studies in History and

Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 62 (1): 145-157.

35. Bilban, T. (2021) “Informational foundations of quantum theory: critical reconsideration from the point of view of a phenome-

nologist,” Continental Philosophy Review 54 (4): 581–594.

36. Blaylock, G. (2010) “The EPR paradox, Bell’s inequality, and the question of locality,” American Journal of Physics 78 (1): 111-

120.

37. Boblest, S., T. Müller, G. Wunner (2011) “Twin paradox in de Sitter spacetime,” European Journal of Physics 32 (5): 1117-1142.

38. Boccaletti, D., F. Catoni, V. Catoni (2007) “Space-Time Trigonometry and Formalization of the “Twin Paradox” for Uniform and

Accelerated Motions,” Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 17 (1): 1-22.

39. Boccaletti, D., F. Catoni, V. Catoni (2007a) “Formalization of the “Twin Paradox” for Non-uniformly Accelerated Motions,”

Advances in Applied Clifford Algebras 17 (4): 611-616.

40. Bodendorfer, N. (2014) “A note on entanglement entropy and quantum geometry,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 31 (21):

214004(13)

41. Boge, F. J. (2019) “Quantum Information Versus Epistemic Logic: An Analysis of the Frauchiger–Renner Theorem,” Foundation

of Physics 49 (10): 1143–1165.

42. Bokulich, A, G. Jaeger, eds. (2010) Philosophy of quantum information and entanglement. Cambridge: University Press.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

43. Bohr, N., H. A. Kramers, J. C. Slater (1924) “Über die Quantentheorie der Strahlung,”. Zeitschrift für Physik 24 (1): 69–87.

44. Bohr, N. (1935) “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be Considered Complete?” Physical Review 48 (8):

696-702.

45. Bohr, N. (1957) “Discussion with Einstein on Epistemological Problems in Atomic Physics,” in: (P. Schlipp, ed.) Albert Ein-

stein: Philosopher – Scientist. New York: Tudor Publishing Co, pp. 199-242.

46. Bolotin, A. (2019) “Propositional counter-factual definiteness and the EPR paradox,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 60 (4):

042103(7).

47. Bonder, Y., D. Sudarsky (2008) “Quantum gravity phenomenology without Lorentz invariance violation: a detailed proposal,”

Classical and Quantum Gravity 25 (10): 105017(16).

48. Bonder, Y., D. Sudarsky (2009) “Unambiguous quantum gravity phenomenology respecting lorentz symmetry,” Reports on

Mathematical Physics 64 (1-2): 169-184.

49. Bonder, Y. (2018) “An algorithm for quantum gravity phenomenology,” Journal of Physics Conference Series 1030 (1): 012001(5).

50. Börner, G., S. Schlieder (1980) “Some remarks concerning the equivalence principle of general relativity with respect to quantum

mechanical one-particle state,” General Relativity and Gravitation 12 (1): 29-41.

51. von Borzeszkowski, H.-H., H.-J. Treder (1982) “Quantum theory and Einstein's general relativity,” Foundations of Physics 12

(11): 1113-1129.

52. von Borzeszkowski, H.-H., H.-J. Treder (1982a) “Remarks on the relation between general relativity and quantum theory,”

Foundations of Physics 12 (4): 413-418.

53. von Borzeszkowski, H.-H., H.-J. Treder (1989) “On Quantum General Relativity,” Annalen der Physik

54. 501 (4): 315-318.

55. von Borzeszkowski, H.-H. (1991) “Quantum General Relativity and the Meaning of (R + R2) Theories,” Annalen der Physik 503

(8): 558-562.

56. Boulware, D. G., S. Deser (1975) “Classical general relativity derived from quantum gravity,” Annals of Physics 89 (1): 193-240.

57. Bricmont, J. (1996) “Quantum non-locality and relativity,” Journal of Statistical Physics 82 (3-4): 1213-1216.

58. Bricmont, J. (2011) “Looking for a quantum ontology,” Metascience 20 (1): 103-106.

59. Brock, S., R. Harré (2016) “Nature’s affordances and formation length: The ontology of quantum physical experiments,” SATS

17 (1): 1—20.

60. Bruschi, D. E.; C. Sabín, A. White, V. Baccetti, D. K. L. Oi, I. Fuentes (2014) “Testing the effects of gravity and motion on quantum

entanglement in space-based experiments,” New Journal of Physics 16 (5): 053041(16).

61. Busch, P. (2002) “Classical versus quantum ontology,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History

and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33 (3): 517-539.

62. Cafaro, C., S. A. Ali (2008) “Can chaotic quantum energy levels statistics be characterized using information geometry and

inference methods?” Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 387 (27): 6876-6894.

63. Cafaro, C., S. Mancini (2012) “On Grover’s search algorithm from a quantum information geometry viewpoint,” Physica A:

Statistical Mechanics and its Applications 391 (4): 1610-1625.

64. Cafaro, C. (2017) “Geometric algebra and information geometry for quantum computational software,” Physica A: Statistical

Mechanics and its Applications 470 (22): 154-196.

65. Cafaro, C., P. M. Alsing (2020) “Information geometry aspects of minimum entropy production paths from quantum mechanical

evolutions,” Physical Review E 101 (2): 022110(10).

66. Calosi, C., V. Fano; G. Tarozzi (2011) “Quantum Ontology and Extensional Mereology,” Foundations of Physics 41 (11): 1740-

1755.

67. Carroll, R. (2005) “Information, Quantum Mechanics, and Gravity,” Foundations of Physics 35 (1): 131-154.

68. Carvalho, M. (2012) “A treatment of the twin paradox based on the assumption of an instantaneous acceleration,” Canadian

Journal of Physics 90 (10): 925-930.

69. Caticha, A. (2018) “Entropic Dynamics: Quantum Mechanics from Entropy and Information Geometry,” Annalen der Physik

531 (3): 17004089(11).

70. Catren, G. (2017) “Klein-Weyl's program and the ontology of gauge and quantum systems,” Studies In History and Philosophy

of Science Part B Studies In History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 61 (4): 25-40.

71. Chang, H. (1993) “A misunderstood rebellion: The twin-paradox controversy and Herbert Dingle's vision of science,” Studies

in History and Philosophy of Science Part A 24 (5): 741-790.

72. Chen, J-L., A. A. Ungar (2002) “Introducing the Einstein Metric to Quantum Computation and Quantum Information Geome-

try,” Foundations of Physics Letters 15 (2): 189-197.

73. Clauser, J., M. Horne, A. Shimony, R. Holt (1969) “Proposed experiment to test local hidden-variable theories,” Physical Review

Letters 23 (15): 880-884.

74. Clauser, J., M. Horne (1974) “Experimental consequences of objective local theories.,” Physical Review D 10 (2): 526-535.

75. Coecke, B. (2003) “Entropic Geometry from Logic,” Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 83 (1): 39-53.

76. Colletti, L., P. Pellegrini (2020) “Merleau-Ponty’s Phenomenology as a Hermeneutic Framework for Quantum Mechanics,” Ax-

iomathes 30 (7): 49-68.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

77. Cook, M. S. (2009) “Interaction mechanics: An Einstein-friendly interpretation of quantum theory,” Physics Essays 22 (3): 334-

343.

78. Coquereaux, R. (1989) “Noncommutative geometry and theoretical physics,” Journal of Geometry and Physics 6 (3): 425-490.

79. Cordovil, J. L. (2015) “Contemporary Quantum Physics Metaphysical Challenge: Looking for a Relational Metaphysics,” Ax-

iomathes 25 (1): 133-143.

80. Corichi, A., D. Sudarsky (2005) “Towards a New Approach to Quantum Gravity Phenomenology,” International Journal of

Modern Physics D 14 (10): 1685-1698.

81. Cornille, P. (1988) “The twin paradox and the Hafele and Keating experiment,” Physics Letters A 131 (3): 156-162.

82. Costa, N., O. Lombardi, M. Lastiri (2013) “A modal ontology of properties for quantum mechanics,” Synthese 190 (17): 3671-

3693.

83. da Costa, N,, O. Lombardi (2014) “Quantum Mechanics: Ontology without Individuals,” Foundations of Physics 44 (12): 1246-

1257.

84. Cover, T. M., P. Gacs, R. M. Gray (1989) “Kolmogorov's Contributions to Information Theory and Algorithmic Complexity,”

The Annals of Probability 17 (3): 840-865.

85. Cranor, M. B., E. M. Heider, R. H. Price (2000) “A circular twin paradox,” American Journal of Physics 68 (11): 1016-1020.

86. Crosilla, L. (2022) “The entanglement of logic and set theory, constructively,” Inquiry (Taylor & Francis) 65 (6): 638-659.

87. Debs, T. A. (1996) “The twin ‘paradox’ and the conventionality of simultaneity,” American Journal of Physics 64 (4): 384-392.

88. Dieks, D. (1990) “A quantum mechanical twin paradox,” Foundations of Physics Letters 3 (4): 347-357.

89. Donnelly, W., S. B. Giddings (2017) “How is quantum information localized in gravity?” Physical Review D 96 (8):

086013(11).

90. Dolby, C. E., S. F. Gull (2001) “On radar time and the twin ‘paradox’,” American Journal of Physics 69 (12): 1257-1261.

91. Doplicher, S. (2019) “The Measurement Process in Local Quantum Physics and the EPR Paradox,” Communications in Mathe-

matical Physics 357 (1): 407-420.

92. Dorato, M. (2015) “Events and the Ontology of Quantum Mechanics,” Topoi 34 (2): 369-378.

93. Dowker, F., J. Henson, R. D. Sorkin (2004) “Quantum Gravity Phenomenology, Lorentz Invariance And Discreteness,” Modern

Physics Letters A 19 (24): 1829-1840.

94. Dray, T. (1990) “The twin paradox revisited,” American Journal of Physics 58 (9): 822-825.

95. Dvali, G., C. Gomez (2009) “Quantum information and gravity cutoff in theories with species,” Physics Letters B 674 (4-5): 303-

307.

96. Dunlap, L. (2015) “On the Common Structure of the Primitive Ontology Approach and the Information-Theoretic Interpretation

of Quantum Theory,” Topoi 34 (2): 359-367.

97. Dürr, D., S. Goldstein, N. Zanghì (1995) “Quantum physics without quantum philosophy,” Studies in History and Philosophy

of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 26 (2): 137-149.

98. Efstathiou, G. & S. Gratton (2020) “The evidence for a spatially flat Universe,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical

Society: Letters 496 (1): L91—L95.

99. Egg, M. M. Esfeld (2015) “Primitive ontology and quantum state in the GRW matter density theory,” Synthese 192 (10): 3229-

3245.

100. Einstein, A. (1920) “Document 31: Ideas and Methods. II. The Theory of General Relativity,” in (M. Janssen et al, eds.). The

Collected Papers of Albert Einstein.Volume 7: The Berlin Years: Writings, 1918-1921 (English translation supplement) Princeton:

University Press, 2002 (paperback) pp. 135-138:

101. https://einsteinpapers.press.princeton.edu/vol7-trans/151 (retrieved 27.02.2023)

102. Einstein, A., B. Podolsky, N. Rosen (1935) “Can Quantum-Mechanical Description of Physical Reality be considered complete?”

Physical Review 47 (10): 777-780.

103. Elsasser, W. M. (1973) “A natural philosophy of quantum mechanics based on induction,” Foundations of Physics 3 (1): 117-

137.

104. Esfeld, M. (2004) “Quantum entanglement and a metaphysics of relations,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part

B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 35 (4): 601-617.

105. Esfeld, M. (2014) “The primitive ontology of quantum physics: Guidelines for an assessment of the proposals,” Studies in His-

tory and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 47 (1): 99-106.

106. Esfeld, M., N. Gisin (2014) “The GRW Flash Theory: A Relativistic Quantum Ontology of Matter in Space-Time?” Philosophy

of Science 81 (2): 248-264.

107. Esfeld, M. (2017) “How to account for quantum non-locality: ontic structural realism and the primitive ontology of quantum

physics,” Synthese 194 (7): 2329–2344.

108. Fano, V., G. Macchia, G. Tarozzi (2019) “Is Einstein’s Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics Ψ-Epistemic?” Axiomathes 29 (2):

607-619.

109. Freedman, S. J., J. F. Clauser (1972) “Experimental Test of Local Hidden-Variable Theories,” Physical Review Letters 28 (14):

938-941.

110. Fidelman, U. (2008) “Cybernetical physics Part II: the EPR paradox and its implications,” Kybernetes 38 (1-2): 189-200.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

111. Fine, D., A. Fine (1997) “Gauge theory, anomalies and global geometry: The interplay of physics and mathematics,” Studies in

History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 28 (3): 307-323.

112. Finkelstein, D., J. M. Gibbs (1993) “Quantum relativity,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 32 (10): 1801-1813.

113. Fleming, G. N. (1995) “Examining the compatibility of special relativity and quantum theory,” Studies in History and Philoso-

phy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 26 (3): 325-331.

114. Flores, F. (1996) “Quantum Non-Locality and Relativity,” Analytic Philosophy 37 (1): 74-77.

115. Forster, M. R. (1986) “Counterfactual Reasoning in the Bell-EPR Paradox,” Philosophy of Science 53 (1): 133-144.

116. Franson, J. D. (2016) “Quantum-mechanical twin paradox,” New Journal of Physics 18 (10): 101001(2)

117. Fremlin, J. H. (1980) “The twin paradox-from the other side,” European Journal of Physics 1 (1): 59-62.

118. French, S., J. Ladyman (2003) “Remodelling Structural Realism: Quantum Physics and the Metaphysics of Structure,” Synthese

136 (1): 31-56.

119. French, S. (2002) “A phenomenological solution to the measurement problem? Husserl and the foundations of quantum me-

chanics,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 33 (3): 467-

491.

120. Friebe, C. (2012) “Twins’ Paradox and Closed Timelike Curves: The Role of Proper Time and the Presentist View on Spacetime,”

Journal for General Philosophy of Science 43 (2): 313-326.

121. Fung, K. K. H., H. A. Clark, G. F. Lewis, X. Wu (2016) A computational approach to the twin paradox in curved spacetime,”

European Journal of Physics 37 (5): 055602(12)

122. Fursaev, D. V. (2008) “Entanglement entropy in quantum gravity and the Plateau problem,” Physical Review D 77 (12)

124002(14).

123. Gambini, R., J. Pullin (2005) “Classical and quantum general relativity: A new paradigm,” General Relativity and Gravitation

37 (10): 1689-1694.

124. Gao, S. (2017) The meaning of the wave function. In search of the ontology of quantum mechanics. Cambridge: University Press.

125. Garcia-Escartin, J. C., P. Chamorro-Posada (2015) “Secure Communication in the Twin Paradox,” Foundations of Physics 45

(11): 1433-1453.

126. Garola, C. (1999) “Semantic Realism: A New Philosophy for Quantum Physics,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 38

(12): 3241-3252.

127. Gasperini, M. (2014) “The twin paradox in the presence of gravity,” Modern Physics Letters A 29 (27): 1450149(5).

128. Garuccio, A. (2000) “Coherent Entangled States, Quantum Mechanics and Relativity,” Fortschritte der Physik 48 (5-7): 481-487.

129. Ghikas, D, P. K. (2001) “Information geometry and the quantum estimation problem,” Reports on Mathematical Physics 48 (1-

2): 83-94.

130. Ghosal, S. K., S. Nepal, D. Das (2005) “The Principle of Equivalence and the Twin Paradox,” Foundations of Physics Letters 18

(7): 603-619.

131. Ghose, P. (1997) “Violation of signal locality and unitarity in a merger of quantum mechanics and general relativity,” Pramana

49 (1): 65-69.

132. Glickm, D. (2016) “The Ontology of Quantum Field Theory: Structural Realism Vindicated?” Studies in History and Philosophy

of Science Part A 59 (1): 78-86.

133. Girelli, F., E. R. Livine (2005) “Reconstructing quantum geometry from quantum information: spin networks as harmonic oscil-

lators,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 22 (16): 3295-3313.

134. Good, R. H. (1982) “Uniformly accelerated reference frame and twin paradox,” American Journal of Physics 50 (3): 232-238.

135. Götte, J. B., S. Franke-Arnold, M. S. Barnett (2006) “Angular EPR paradox,” Journal of Modern Optics 53 (5-6): 627-645.

136. Goyal, P. (2010) “From information geometry to quantum theory,” New Journal of Physics 12 (2): 23012(9).

137. Grabowski, J., M. Kuś, G. Marmo (2005) Geometry of quantum systems: density states and entanglement,” Journal of Physics

A: Mathematical and General Physics 38 (47): 10217-10244.

138. Grandou, T., J. L. Rubin (2009) “On the Ingredients of the Twin Paradox,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 48 (1):

101-114.

139. Grattan-Guinness, I. (2002) Algebras, Projective Geometry, Mathematical Logic, and Constructing the World: Intersections in

the Philosophy of Mathematics of A. N. Whitehead,” Historia Mathematica 29 (4): 427-462.

140. Greenberger, D. M. (1972) “The Reality of the Twin Paradox Effect,” American Journal of Physics 40 (5): 750-754.

141. Griffiths, R. B. (2013) “A consistent quantum ontology,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History

and Philosophy of Modern Physics 44 (2): 93-114.

142. Grøn, Ø. (2006) “The twin paradox in the theory of relativity,” European Journal of Physics 27 (4): 885-889.

143. Grøn, Ø., S. Braeck (2011) “The twin paradox in a cosmological context,” The European Physical Journal 126 (9): 79(14).

144. Grøn, Ø. (2013) “The twin paradox and the principle of relativity,” Physica Scripta 87 (3): 035004(8).

145. Grössing, G; S. Fussy, J. M. Pascasio, H. Schwabl (2014) “Relational causality and classical probability: Grounding quantum

phenomenology in a superclassical theory,” Journal of Physics Conference Series 504 (1): 012006(15).

146. Guerra, F., M. Leone, N. Robotti (2014) When Energy Conservation Seems to Fail: The Prediction of the Neutrino,” Science &

Education 23 (6): 1339-1359.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

147. Guo, X.-K., Q.-Y. Cai (2018) “Hidden messenger from quantum geometry: Towards information conservation in quantum grav-

ity,” Modern Physics Letters A 33 (18): 1850103(13).

148. Hagar, A. (2017) “On the Tension between Ontology and Epistemology in Quantum Probabilities,” in (O. Lombardi, S. Fortin,

F. Holil, C. López, eds.) What is Quantum Information? Cambridge: University Press, pp.147-178.

149. Harding, C. (1977) “Quantum mechanics as demanded by the special theory of relativity,” Foundations of Physics 7 (1-2): 69-

76.

150. Harding, J. (2021) “Everettian Quantum Mechanics and the Metaphysics of Modality,” The British Journal for the Philosophy

of Science 72 (4): 939-964.

151. Harpaz, A. (1990) “The twins paradox and the principle of equivalence,” European Journal of Physics 11 (2): 82-87.

152. Heelan, P. A. (2013) “Phenomenology, Ontology, and Quantum Physics,” Foundations of Science 18 (2): 379-385.

153. Held, C. (2015) “Einstein’s Boxes: Incompleteness of Quantum Mechanics Without a Separation Principle,” Foundations of

Physics 45 (9): 1002-1018.

154. Holland, P. (2005) “What’s Wrong with Einstein’s Hidden-Variable Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics?” Foundations of

Physics 35 (2): 177-196.

155. Honig, W. M. (1976) “Gödel axiom mappings in special relativity and quantum-electromagnetic theory,” Foundations of

Physics 6 (1): 37-57.

156. Horodecki, R., M. Horodecki, P. Horodecki (2004) “Quantum information isomorphism: Beyond the dilemma of the Scylla of

ontology and the Charybdis of instrumentalism,” IBM Journal of Research and Development 48 (1): 139-147.

157. Hyatt, K., J. R. Garrison, B. Bauer (2017) “Extracting Entanglement Geometry from Quantum States,” Physical Review Letters

119 (14): 140502(6).

158. Ingarden, R. S. (1981) “Information geometry in functional spaces of classical and quantum finite statistical systems,” Interna-

tional Journal of Engineering Science 19 (12): 1609-1633.

159. Iwai, T. (2007) “The geometry of multi-qubit entanglement,” Journal of Physics A Mathematical and Theoretical 40 (40): 12161-

12184.

160. Jencov, A. (2002) “Quantum information geometry and standard purification,” Journal of Mathematical Physics 43 (5): 2187-

2201.

161. Kar, G., S. Kunkri, S. K. Choudhary (2006) “Special relativity, causality and quantum mechanics,” Resonance 11 (8) 41-52; 11

(9): 43-54.

162. Kay, B. S. (2018) “Matter-Gravity Entanglement Hypothesis,” Foundations of Physics 48 (5): 542–557.

163. Kempf, A., R. Martin (2008) “Information Theory, Spectral Geometry, and Quantum Gravity,” Physical Review Letters 100 (2):

021304(4).

164. Kempf, A. (2018) “Quantum Gravity, Information Theory and the CMB,” Foundations of Physics 48 (10): 1191–1203.

165. Khrennikov, A. (2009) “EPR ‘paradox’, projection postulate, time synchronization ‘nonlocality’,” International Journal of Quan-

tum Information 7 (supp01): 71-81.

166. Khrennikov, A. (2017) “Quantum epistemology from subquantum ontology: Quantum mechanics from theory of classical ran-

dom fields,” Annals of Physics 377 (6): 147-163.

167. Kim, E. (2018) “Investigating Information Geometry in Classical and Quantum Systems through Information Length.” Entropy

20 (8): 574(11).

168. Kim, K., J. Kim, J. Bae (2010) “Entanglement, detection, and geometry of nonclassical states,” Physical Review A 82 (4): 42105(5).

169. Kleinschmidt, A., N. Hermann (2010) “Arithmetic Quantum Gravity,” International Journal of Modern Physics D 19 (14): 2305-

2310.

170. Kochen, S., E. Specker (1967) “The Problem of Hidden Variables in Quantum Mechanics,” Journal of Mathematics and Mechan-

ics 17 (1): 59-87.

171. Kohler, M. (2006) “Finding the Missing Time in the Instantaneous Turnaround Version of the Twin Paradox,” Foundations of

Physics Letters 19 (6): 537-551.

172. Kong, O. C. W. (2008) “A deformed relativity with the quantum ℏ,” Physics Letters B 665 (1): 58-61.

173. Korotkikh, V. (2009) “Arithmetic for the unification of quantum mechanics and general relativity,” Journal of Physics

Conference Series 174 (1): 012055(8).

174. Krause, D., A. S. Sant’Anna, A. G. Volkov (1999) “Quasi-set theory for bosons and fermions: Quantum distributions,” Founda-

tions of Physics Letters 12 (1): 51-66.

175. Krause, D. (2000) “Remarks on Quantum Ontology,” Synthese 125 (1-2) 155-167.

176. Kryukov, A. (2006) “Quantum Mechanics on Hilbert Manifolds: The Principle of Functional Relativity,” Foundations of Physics

36 (2): 175-226.

177. Kryukov, A. (2011) “Geometry of the Unification of Quantum Mechanics and Relativity of a Single Particle,” Foundations of

Physics 41 (1): 129-140.

178. Kuhn, T. S. (1962). The Structure of Scientific Revolutions. Chicago - London: University of Chicago Press.

179. Kumar, P., S. Mahapatra, P. Phukon, T. Sarkar (2012) “Geodesics in information geometry: Classical and quantum phase tran-

sitions,” Physical Review E 86 (5): 051117(6).

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

180. Kupczynski, M. (2016) “EPR paradox, quantum nonlocality and physical reality,” Journal of Physics Conference Series 701 (1):

012021(17).

181. Lam, V., M. Esfeld (2012) “The Structural Metaphysics of Quantum Theory and General Relativity,” Journal for General Philos-

ophy of Science 43 (2): 243-258.

182. Lam, V. (2015) “Primitive ontology and quantum field theory,” European Journal for Philosophy of Science 5 (3): 387-397.

183. Lando, A, E. Bringuier (2008) “On the classical roots of the Einstein–Podolsky–Rosen paradox,” European Journal of Physics 9

(2): 313-318.

184. Lazarovici, D., A, Oldofredi, M. Esfeld (2018) “Observables and Unobservables in Quantum Mechanics: How the No-Hidden-

Variables Theorems Support the Bohmian Particle Ontology,” Molecular Diversity Preservation International 20 (5): 381(17).

185. Lee, J. (2014) “EPR Paradox Solved by Special Theory of Relativity,” Acta Physica Polonica A 125 (5): 1107-1110.

186. Lee, J.-W., H-C. Kim, J. Lee (2015) “Gravity as a quantum entanglement force,” Journal of the Korean Physical Society 66 (6):

1025-1030.

187. Lee, J.-W., H-C. Kim, J. Lee (2013) “Gravity from quantum information,” Journal of the Korean Physical Society 63 (5): 1094-

1098.

188. Lévay, P (2004) “The geometry of entanglement: metrics, connections and the geometric phase,”

189. Journal of Physics A: Mathematical and General Physics 37 (5): 1821-1841.

190. Lévay, P. (2005) “Geometry of three-qubit entanglement,” Physical Review A 71 (1): 12334(5).

191. Lewis, P. J. (2006) “GRW: A Case Study in Quantum Ontology,” Philosophy Compass 1 (2): 224-244.

192. Lewis, P. J. (2017) Quantum Ontology: A Guide to the Metaphysics of Quantum Mechanics. Oxford: University Press.

193. Lian, B. H., S.-T. Yau (1996) “Arithmetic properties of mirror map and quantum coupling,” Communications in Mathematical

Physics 176 (1): 163-191.

194. Liberati, S., L. Maccione (2011) “Quantum Gravity phenomenology: achievements and challenges,” Journal of Physics Confer-

ence Series 314 (1): 012007(10).

195. Lichtenegger, H., L. Iorio (2011) “The twin paradox and Mach’s principle,” The European Physical Journal Plus 126 (12): 129(11).

196. Lindenstrauss, E. (2006) “Invariant measures and arithmetic quantum unique ergodicity,” Annals of Mathematics 163 (1): 165-

219.

197. Lindkvist, J., C. Sabín, I. Fuentes, A. Dragan, I.-M. Svensson, P. Delsing, G. Johansson (2014) Twin paradox with macroscopic

clocks in superconducting circuits,” Physical Review A 90 (5): 052113.

198. Ma, C.-T. (2018) “Discussion of Entanglement Entropy in Quantum Gravity,” Fortschritte der Physik 66 (2): 1700095(4).

199. Macías, A., A. Camacho (2008) “On the incompatibility between quantum theory and general relativity,” Physics Letters B 663

(1-2): 99-102.

200. MacKinnon, E. (2007) “Schwinger and the Ontology of Quantum Field Theory,” Foundations of Science 12 (4): 295-323.

201. Madarsz, J. X., I. Németi, G. Székely (2006) “Twin Paradox and the Logical Foundation of Relativity Theory,” Foundations of

Physics 36 (5): 681-714.

202. Major, S. A. (2010) “Shape in an atom of space: exploring quantum geometry phenomenology,” Classical and Quantum Gravity

27 (22): 225012(16).

203. Major, S. A. (2012) “Quantum Geometry Phenomenology: Angle and Semiclassical States,” Journal of Physics Conference Series

360 (1): 012061(4).

204. Mallios, A. (2006) “Geometry and Physics Today,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 45 (8): 1552-1588.

205. Marchetti, P. A, R. Rubele (2007) “Quantum Logic and Non-Commutative Geometry,” International Journal of Theoretical Phys-

ics 46 (1): 49-62.

206. Marletto, C., V. Vedral (2017) “Gravitationally Induced Entanglement between Two Massive Particles is Sufficient Evidence of

Quantum Effects in Gravity,” Physical Review Letters 119 (24): 240402(5).

207. Masi, S. et al. (2002) “The BOOMERanG experiment and the curvature of the universe,”

208. Progress in Particle and Nuclear Physics 48 (1): 243-261.

209. Mayants, L. (1995) “Einstein's relativity and quantum physics,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 34 (8): 1575-1585.

210. McCall, S. (2006) “Philosophical Consequences of the Twins Paradox,” in: (D. Dieks, ed.) The Ontology of Spacetime (Philoso-

phy and Foundations of Physics 1) Amsterdam - Boston - Heidelberg - London - New York - Oxford - Paris San Diego - San

Francisco - Singapore - Sydney - Tokyo: Elsevier, pp. 191-204.

211. Van Meter, R., K. Nemoto, W. J. Munro, K. M. Itoh (2008) “Distributed Arithmetic on a Quantum Multicomputer,” ACM

SIGARCH Computer Architecture News 34 (2): 354-365.

212. Van Meter, R., W. J. Munro, K. Nemoto, K. M. Itoh (2008a) “Arithmetic on a distributed-memory quantum multicomputer,”

ACM Journal on Emerging Technologies in Computing Systems 3 (4): 1-23.

213. Minic. D., C.-H. Tze (2004) “A general theory of quantum relativity,” Physics Letters B 581 (1-2): 111-118.

214. Misner, C. W., J. A. Wheeler (1957) “Classical physics as geometry.” Annals of Physics 2 (6): 525-603.

215. Moffat, J. W. (2004) “Relativistic, causal description of quantum entanglement and gravity,” International Journal of Modern

Physics D 13 (1): 75-83.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

216. Moreau, P.-A., F. Devaux, E. Lantz (2014) “Einstein-Podolsky-Rosen Paradox in Twin Images,” Physical Review Letters 113

(16): 160401(5)

217. Mosseri, R., P. Ribeiro (2007) “Entanglement and Hilbert space geometry for systems with a few qubits,” Mathematical Struc-

tures in Computer Science 17 (6): 1117-1132.

218. Muller, R. A. (1972) “The Twin Paradox in Special Relativity,” American Journal of Physics 40 (7): 966-969.

219. Muller, T., A. King, D. Adis (2008) “A trip to the end of the universe and the twin ‘paradox’,” American Journal of Physics 76

(4): 360-373.

220. Mullick, L., P. Bandyopadhyaya (2012) “Quantum geometry and entanglement entropy of a black hole,” General Relativity and

Gravitation 44 (5): 1199—1205.

221. de Muynck, W. M. (1995) “Measurement and the interpretation of quantum mechanics and relativity theory,” Synthese 102 (2):

293-318.

222. El Naschie, M. S. (2004) “Quantum gravity, Clifford algebras, fuzzy set theory and the fundamental constants of nature,” Chaos,

Solitons & Fractals 20 (3): 437-450.

223. El Naschie, M. S. (2004a) “Quantum gravity from descriptive set theory,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 19 (5): 1339-1344.

224. El Naschie, M. S. (2008) “Quantum gravity unification via transfinite arithmetic and geometrical averaging,” Chaos, Solitons &

Fractals 35 (2): 252-256.

225. Nauenberg, M. (2016) “Einstein's equivalence principle in quantum mechanics revisited,” American Journal of Physics 84 (11):

879-882.

226. von Neumann, J. (1932) Mathematische Grundlagen der Quantenmechanik. Berlin: Verlag Julius Springer, pp. 167-173.

227. Neumann, M. (1978) “A probabilistic analysis of the difficulties of unifying quantum mechanics with the theory of relativity,”

Foundations of Physics 8 (9-10): 721-733.

228. Nickerson, J. C. (1975) “Does Euclidean geometry imply quantum physics?” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 14 (6):

379-384.

229. Nikolić, H. (2000) “The role of acceleration and locality in the twin paradox,” Foundations of Physics Letters 13 (6): 595-601.

230. Noether, E. (1918) “Invariante Variationsprobleme,” in: Nachrichten der Königlichen Gesellschaft der Wissenschaften zu Göt-

tingen, Mathematisch-Physikalische Klasse 1918, pp. 235-257

231. Nomura, Y., J. Varela, S. J. Weinberg (2013) “Black holes, information, and Hilbert space for quantum gravity,” Physical Review

D 87 (8) 084050(17).

232. Norton, J. (2020) “Incubating a future metaphysics: quantum gravity,” Synthese 197 (5): 1961–1982.

233. Nottale, L. (1995) “Scale relativity: From quantum mechanics to chaotic dynamics,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 6 (none): 399-

410.

234. O’Hara, P. (2005) “Quantum Mechanics and the Metrics of General Relativity,” Foundations of Physics

235. 35 (9): 1563-1584.

236. Ord, G. N. (2012) “Quantum Phase from the Twin Paradox,” Journal of Physics Conference Series 361 (1): 012007(12)

237. Otte, M. (1990) “Arithmetic and geometry: Some remarks on the concept of complementarity,” Studies in Philosophy and Edu-

cation 10 (1): 37-62.

238. Ozawa, M. (2007) “Transfer Principle in Quantum Set Theory,” Journal of Symbolic Logic 72 (2): 625-648.

239. Pakaluk, M. (1992) “The Doctrine of Relations in Bertrand Russell's Principles of Mathematics,” Tópicos: Revista de Filosofía 2

(1):153-182.

240. Palmer, T. N. (2011) “The Invariant Set Hypothesis: A New Geometric Framework for the Foundations of Quantum Theory and

the Role Played by Gravity,” Electronic Notes in Theoretical Computer Science 270 (2): 115-119.

241. Palmquist, S. (2007) “Emergence, Evolution, and the Geometry of Logic: Causal Leaps and the Myth of Historical Develop-

ment,” Foundations of Science 12 (1): 9-37.

242. Palmquist, S. R. (2012) “Mapping Kant's Architectonic onto the Yijing Via the Geometry of Logic,” Journal of Chinese Philoso-

phy 39 (1): 93-111.

243. Parsons, C. (2013) “Some Consequences of the Entanglement of Logic and Mathematics,” in: (Frauchiger, M.. ed.) Reference,

Rationality, and Phenomenology. Themes from Føllesdal (Lauener Library of Analytical Philosophy 2). Frankfurt - Paris - Lan-

caster - New Brunswick: De Gruyter, pp. 153-178.

244. Paty, M. (1995) “The nature of Einstein's objections to the Copenhagen interpretation of quantum mechanics,” Foundations of

Physics 25 (1): 183-204.

245. Peacock, K. A. (2002) “Bub and the barriers to quantum ontology,” International Studies in the Philosophy of Science 16 (3):

285-289.

246. Penchev, V. (2022 February 4) “The Homeomorphism of Minkowski Space and the Separable Complex Hilbert Space: The phys-

ical, Mathematical and Philosophical Interpretations,” SSRN,

247. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3967854 , https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3967854 .

248. Penchev, V. (2021 August 24) “Hilbert arithmetic as a Pythagorean arithmetic: arithmetic as transcendental,” SSRN, https://pa-

pers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3909610 or

249. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3909610 .

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

250. Penchev, V. (2021 July 8) ““Two bits less” after quantum-information conservation and their interpretation as “distinguishabil-

ity / indistinguishability” and “classical / quantum”,” SSRN,

251. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3873123 , https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3873123 .

252. Penchev, V. (2021 June 8) “The Symmetries of Quantum and Classical Information. The Resurrected 'Ether' of Quantum Infor-

mation,” SSRN, https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3861105 or

253. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3861105 .

254. Penchev, V. (2021 April 12) “Both Classical & Quantum Information; Both Bit & Qubit: Transcendental Time. Both Physical &

Transcendental Time,” SSRN, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3823665,2921 https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?ab-

stract_id=3823665 .

255. Penchev, V. (2021 March 9) “Fermat’s last theorem proved in Hilbert arithmetic. I. From the proof by induction to the viewpoint

of Hilbert arithmetic,” SSRN, https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3785977 or

256. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3785977 ,

257. Penchev, V. (2020 October 20) “Two deductions: (1) from the totality to quantum information conservation; (2) from the latter

to dark matter and dark energy,” SSRN,

258. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3683658 , https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3683658 .

259. Penchev, V. (2020 October 5) “Quantum-Information Conservation. The Problem About ‘Hidden Variables’, or the ‘Conserva-

tion of Energy Conservation’ in Quantum Mechanics: A Historical Lesson for Future Discoveries,” SSRN, https://pa-

pers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3675319 ,

260. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3675319 .

261. Penchev, V. (2020 August 7) “Cyclic Mechanics: the Principle of Cyclicity,” SSRN,

262. https://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3648139 , https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3648139 .

263. Penchev, V. (2020 August 5) “A Class of Examples Demonstrating That 'P ≠ NP' in the 'P Vs NP' Problem,” SSRN, https://pa-

pers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3647038 ,

264. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3647038 .

265. Penchev, V. (2020 July 10) “Quantum information as the information of infinite collections or series,” SSRN, https://pa-

pers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=3630063 or

266. https://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3630063 .

267. Penchev, V. (2013) “The Kochen - Specker theorem in quantum mechanics: a philosophical comment (part 1 & part 2),” Philo-

sophical Alternatives 22 (1): 67-77 & (3): 74-83,

268. https://philpapers.org/rec/PENTK-2 & https://philpapers.org/rec/PENTK .

269. Penchev, V. (2009) Philosophy of quantum information. Einstein and Gödel. Sofia: IPhR - BAS (in Bulgarian: https://phil-

papers.org/rec/PEN-7 ).

270. Penchev, V. (1997) Physical paradoxes in philosophical interpretation. Sofia: “LIK” (in Bulgarian: https://phil-

papers.org/rec/PEN-15 ).

271. Peres, A. (2004) “Quantum information and general relativity,” Fortschritte der Physik 52 (11-12): 1052-1055.

272. Perrin, R. (1979) “Twin paradox: A complete treatment from the point of view of each twin,” American Journal of Physics 47

(4): 317-319.

273. Pesic, P. (2003) “Einstein and the twin paradox,” European Journal of Physics 24 (6): 585-590.

274. Pierpaoli, E. (2000) “How Flat Is the Universe?” Science 287 (5461): 2171-2172.

275. Pissondes. J. C. (1998) “‘Scale covariant’ representation of quantum mechanics. Energy in scale-relativity theory,” Chaos, Soli-

tons & Fractals 9 (7): 1115-1142.

276. Pitowsky, I. (1991) “The relativity of quantum predictions,” Physics Letters A 156 (3-4): 137-139.

277. Planat, M., H. Rosu (2004) “The hyperbolic, the arithmetic and the quantum phase,” Journal of Optics B Quantum and Semi-

classical Optics 6 (6): S583-S590.

278. Plotkin, B. (2006) “Algebraic geometry in first-order logic,” Journal of Mathematical Sciences 137 (5): 5049-5097.

279. Plotkin, B. (2013) “Algebraic logic and logical geometry. Two in one,” Vestnik St. Petersburg University: Mathematics 46 (1):

35-42.

280. Prugovečki, E. (1996) “On locality in quantum general relativity and quantum gravity,” Foundations of Physics 26 (12): 1645-

1668.

281. Pykacz, J. (2006) “‘Solution’ of the EPR Paradox: Negative, or Rather Fuzzy Probabilities?” Foundations of Physics 36 (3): 437-

442.

282. Qi, X.-L. (2018) “Does gravity come from quantum information?” Nature Physics 14 (10): 984-987.

283. Ord-Hume, A. W. J. G. (2005) Perpetual motion: the history of an obsession. Kempton: Adventures Unlimited Press.

284. Rapoport, D. L. (2011) “Surmounting the Cartesian Cut Through Philosophy, Physics, Logic, Cybernetics, and Geometry: Self-

reference, Torsion, the Klein Bottle, the Time Operator, Multivalued Logics and Quantum Mechanics,” Foundations of Physics

41 (1): 33-76.

285. Rayski, J. (1982) “Between general relativity and quantum theory,” General Relativity and Gravitation 14 (11): 1085-1093.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

286. Rédei, M. (2010) “Einstein's Dissatisfaction with Nonrelativistic Quantum Mechanics and Relativistic Quantum Field Theory,”

Philosophy of Science 77 (5): 1042-1057.

287. Rees, M.J. (1984) “Is the Universe flat?” Journal of Astrophysics and Astronomy 5 (4): 331-348.

288. Reginatto, M. (2014) “From probabilities to wave functions: A derivation of the geometric formulation of quantum theory from

information geometry,” Journal of Physics Conference Series 538 (1): 012018(14).

289. Renshaw, C. (1996) “Moving clocks, reference frames and the twin paradox,” IEEE Aerospace and Electronic Systems Magazine

11 (1): 27-31.

290. Resconi, G., I, Licata, D. Fiscaletti (2013) “Unification of Quantum and Gravity by Non Classical Information Entropy Space,”

Entropy 15 (9): 3602-3619.

291. Reuse, F. (1974) “On a newtonian-like formulation of Einstein's relativity and relativistic quantum mechanics,” Annals of Phys-

ics 154 (1): 161-210.

292. Robinson, A. (1966) Non-standard analysis. Amsterdam: North-Holland Publishing.

293. Rodrigues W.A. (Jr.), E. C. de Oliveira (1989) “A comment on the twin paradox and the Hafele-Keating experiment,” Physics

Letters A 140 (9): 479-484.

294. Rodrigues, W. A., M. A. F. Rosa (1989) “The meaning of time in the theory of relativity and “Einstein's later view of the Twin

Paradox,” Foundations of Physics 19 (6): 705-724.

295. Roldán-Charria, J. (2014) “Indivisibility, Complementarity and Ontology: A Bohrian Interpretation of Quantum Mechanics,”

Foundations of Physics 44 (12): 1336-1356.

296. Rosen, N. (1982) “Weyl's geometry and physics,” Foundations of Physics 12 (3): 213-248.

297. Rosen, S. M. (2008) “Quantum Gravity and Phenomenological Philosophy,” Foundations of Physics 38 (6): 556-582.

298. Rossler, O. E., P. Weibel (2001) “Post-quantum relativity,” Chaos, Solitons & Fractals 12 (9): 1573-1576.

299. Roukema, B. F., S. Bajtlik (2008) “Homotopy symmetry in the multiply connected twin paradox of special relativity,” Monthly

Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 390 (2): 855-664.

300. Ruiz, E. C.; F. Giacomini, Č. Brukner (2017) “Entanglement of quantum clocks through gravity,” Proceedings of the National

Academy of Sciences 114 (12): E2303—E2309.

301. Ruiz-Perez, L., J. C. Garcia-Escartin (2017) “Quantum arithmetic with the quantum Fourier transform,” Quantum Information

Processing 16 (6): 152(14).

302. Russell, B. A. W. (1896) “The Logic of Geometry,” Mind 5 (17): 1-23.

303. Russell, B. A. W. (1956) Logic and Knowledge (R.C. Marsh, ed.). London: Allen & Unwin., 1956.

304. De Sabbata, V., C. Sivaram, H.-H. v. Borzeszkowski, H.-J. Treder (1991) Quantum General Relativity, Torsion and Uncertainty

Relations,” Annalen der Physik 503 (7): 497-502.

305. Şahin, E. (2020) “Quantum arithmetic operations based on quantum fourier transform on signed integers,” International Jour-

nal of Quantum Information 2050035(21).

306. Sachs, M. (1985) “On Einstein's later view of the twin paradox,” Foundations of Physics 15 (9): 977-980.

307. Santos, E. (2003) “Quantum Logic, Probability, and Information: The Relation with the Bell Inequalities,” International Journal

of Theoretical Physics 42 (10): 2545-2555.

308. Sarnak, P. (1983) “The arithmetic and geometry of some hyperbolic three manifolds,” Acta Mathematica 151 (1): 253-295.

309. Sato, H. (2007) Black Holes: Quantum, Gravity and Information,” Progress of Theoretical Physics 170 (Supplement): 91-99.

310. Sauer, T. (2007) “An Einstein manuscript on the EPR paradox for spin observables,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Sci-

ence Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy of Modern Physics 38 (4): 879-887.

311. Schlesinger, K.-G. (1999) “Toward quantum mathematics. I. From quantum set theory to universal quantum mechanics,” Jour-

nal of Mathematical Physics 40 (3): 1344-1358.

312. Schmeikal, B. (1998) “The Emergence of Orientation and the Geometry of Logic,” Quality & Quantity 32 (2): 119-154.

313. Schmidt, R. (2010) “A non-canonical approach to arithmetic spin geometry and physical applications,” P-Adic Numbers, Ultra-

metric Analysis, and Applications 2 (2): 133-156.

314. Schön, M. (1998) “Twin Paradox without One-Way Velocity Assumptions,” Foundations of Physics 28 (2): 185-204.

315. Schrödinger, E. (1926) “An Undulatory Theory of the Mechanics of Atoms and Molecules,” Physical Review 28 (6): 1049–1070.

316. Schwarz, A., I. Shapiro (2006) “Supergeometry and arithmetic geometry,” Nuclear Physics B 756 (3): 207-218.

317. Selleri, F., G. Tarozzi (1986) “Why quantum mechanics is incompatible with Einstein locality,” Physics Letters A 119 (3): 101-

104.

318. Sfarti, A. (2012) “Relativity solution for “Twin paradox”: a comprehensive solution,” Indian Journal of Physics 86 (10): 937-942.

319. Sibelius, P. (1989) “An interpretation within philosophy of the relationship between classical mechanics and quantum mechan-

ics,” Foundations of Physics 19 (11): 1315-1326.

320. Simonov, K., A. Capolupo, A., S. M. Giampaolo (2019) “Gravity, entanglement and CPT-symmetry violation in particle mixing,”

The European Physical Journal C 79 (11): 902(8).

321. Slowik, E. (2013) “The deep metaphysics of quantum gravity: The seventeenth century legacy and an alternative ontology be-

yond substantivalism and relationism,” Studies in History and Philosophy of Science Part B: Studies in History and Philosophy

of Modern Physics 44 (4): 490-499.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

322. Smolin, L. (2011) “Classical paradoxes of locality and their possible quantum resolutions in deformed special relativity,” Gen-

eral Relativity and Gravitation 43 (12): 3671-3691.

323. Sokołowski, L. M. (2012) “On the twin paradox in static spacetimes: I. Schwarzschild metric,” General Relativity and Gravitation

44 (5): 1267-1283.

324. Sokołowski, L. M., Z. A. Golda (2014) “The Local and Global Geometrical Aspects of the Twin Paradox in Static Spacetimes: I.

Three Spherically Symmetric Spacetimes,” Acta Physica Polonica B 45 (5): 1051-1075.

325. Sokołowski, L. M., Z. A. Golda (2014a) “The Local and Global Geometrical Aspects of the Twin Paradox in Static Spacetimes:

II. Reissner -Nordströom and Ultrastatic Metrics,” Acta Physica Polonica B 45 (8): 1713-1742.

326. Soni, V. S. (2002) “A simple solution of the twin paradox also shows anomalous behaviour of rigidly connected distant clocks,”

European Journal of Physics 23 (2): 225-231.

327. Sorkin, R. D., Y. K. Yazdi (2018) “Entanglement entropy in causal set theory,” Classical and Quantum Gravity 35 (7): 074004(17).

328. Souriau, J.-M. (1983) “Physics and geometry,” Foundations of Physics 13 (1): 133-151.

329. Squires, E. J. (1990) “Special relativity and realism in quantum physics,” Physics Letters A 145 (6-7): 297-298.

330. Srikanth, R. (2001) “On a generalized peaceful coexistence of special relativity and quantum mechanics,” Physics Letters A 292

(3): 161-165.

331. Stairs, A. (1985) “Bub On Quantum Logic and Continuous Geometry,” The British Journal for the Philosophy of Science 36 (3):

313-325.

332. Streater, R. F. (1996) “Information geometry and reduced quantum description,” Reports on Mathematical Physics 38 (3): 419-

436.

333. Streater, R. F. (2004) “Duality in Quantum Information Geometry,” Open Systems & Information Dynamics 11 (1): 71-77.

334. Streater, R. F. (2004a) “Quantum Orlicz Spaces in Information Geometry,” Open Systems & Information Dynamics 11 (4): 359-

375.

335. Sudarsky, D. (2005) “Perspectives on Quantum Gravity Phenomenology,” International Journal of Modern Physics D 14 (12):

2069—2094.

336. Sudarsky, D. (2007) “A path towards quantum gravity phenomenology,” Journal of Physics Conference Series 66 (1): 012037(10).

337. Szabó, L. E. (2000) “Attempt to Resolve the EPR-Bell Paradox via Reichenbach's Concept of Common Cause,” International

Journal of Theoretical Physics 39 (3): 901-911.

338. Székely, G. (2010) “A Geometrical Characterization of the Twin Paradox and its Variants,” Studia Logica 95 (1-2): 161-182,

339. Takahashi, Y. (2009) “Quantum Arithmetic Circuits: A Survey,” IEICE Transactions on Fundamentals of Electronics Commu-

nications and Computer Sciences E92-A (5): 1276-1283.

340. Takeuti, G. (1981) “Quantum Set Theory,” in (E. G. Beltrametti, B. C. van Fraassen, eds.) Current Issues in Quantum Logic.

Net Toyk: Springer, pp. 303-322.

341. Tappenden, J. (1995) “Geometry and generality in Frege's philosophy of arithmetic,” Synthese 102 (3): 319-361.

342. Tartaglia, A. (1998) “Is the EPR paradox really a paradox?” European Journal of Physics 19 (3): 307-311.

343. The Nobel Committee (2011) “The Nobel Prize in Physics 2011”, NobelPrize.org, Nobel Media AB 2020. https://www.no-

belprize.org/prizes/physics/2011/summary/ (seen Feb 28, 2023).

344. Titani, S., H. Kozawa (2003) “Quantum Set Theory,” International Journal of Theoretical Physics 42 (11): 2575-2602.

345. Torromé, R. G., M. Letizia, S. Liberati (2015) “Phenomenology of effective geometries from quantum gravity,” The American

Physical Society 92 (12): 124021(7).

346. Unruh, W. G. (1981) “Parallax distance, time, and the twin ‘paradox’,’’ American Journal of Physics 49 (6): 589-592.

347. Uzan, J. P., J.-P. Luminet, R. Lehoucq, P. Peter (2002) “The twin paradox and space topology,” European Journal of Physics 23

(3): 277-284.

348. Vandyck, M. A. (1991) “A remark on the twin ‘paradox’,” Foundations of Physics Letters 4 (6): 593-600.

349. Vardanyan, M., R. Trotta, J. Silk (2009) “How flat can you get? A model comparison perspective on

350. the curvature of the Universe,” Monthly Notices of the Royal Astronomical Society 397 (1): 431-444.

351. Vassallo, A., M. Esfeld (2014) “A Proposal for a Bohmian Ontology of Quantum Gravity,” Foundations of Physics 44 (1): 1-18.

352. Vedral, V., A. Barenco, A. Ekert (1996) “Quantum networks for elementary arithmetic operations,” Physical Review A 54 (1):

147-153.

353. Vigier, J. P. (1988) “Einstein's Materialism and Modern Tests of Quantum Mechanics,” Annalen der Physik 500 (1): 61-80.

354. Wallace, D. (2020) “Lessons from realistic physics for the metaphysics of quantum theory,” Synthese 197 (10): 4303–4318.

355. Wang, B., Y. Gong, R.-K. Su (2005) “Probing the curvature of the Universe from supernova measurement,” Physics Letters B

605 (1-2): 9-14.

356. Weinfurtner, S., S. Liberati, M, Visser (2006) “Analogue model for quantum gravity phenomenology,”Journal of Physics A:

Mathematical and General Physics 39 (21): 6807-6813.

357. Wesson, P. S. (2011) “General relativity and quantum mechanics in five dimensions,” Physics Letters B

358. 701 (4): 379-383.

359. Weeks, J. R. (2001) “The Twin Paradox in a Closed Universe,” American Mathematical Monthly 108 (7): 585-590.

360. Wilson, A. (2011) “Macroscopic ontology in everettian quantum mechanics,” The Philosophical Quarterly 61 (243): 363-382.

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1

361. de Wolf, D. A. (2016) “Aging and communication in the twin paradox,” European Journal of Physics 37 (6): 065604(10)

362. Wynn, K., P. Bloom (1992) “The Origins of Psychological Axioms of Arithmetic and Geometry,” Mind & Language 7 (4): 409-

420.

363. Zanardi, P., P. Giorda, M. Cozzini (2007) “Information-Theoretic Differential Geometry of Quantum Phase Transitions,” Phys-

ical Review Letters 99 (10): 100603(4).

364. Zbinden, H., J. Brendel, W. Tittel, N. Gisin (2001) “Causality, relativity and quantum correlation experiments with moving

reference frames,” Pramana 56 (2-3): 349-355.

365. Zhang, Y. (2020) “Four Arithmetic Operations on the Quantum Computer,” Journal of Physics Conference Series 1575 (1):

012037(7).

366. Zhotikov, V. G. (2003) “On the Geometry of Variational Principles of Physics,” Russian Physics Journal 46 (3): 219-224.

367. Zizzi, P. (2000) “Holography, Quantum Geometry, and Quantum Information Theory,” Entropy 2 (1): 39-69.

368. Zizzi, P. A. (2007) “Basic logic and quantum entanglement,” Journal of Physics 67 (Conference Series): 012045(8).

Preprints (www.preprints.org) | NOT PEER-REVIEWED | Posted: 13 March 2023 doi:10.20944/preprints202303.0232.v1